Sections 212 and 213 CrPC: Particulars of Time, Place and Person in a Charge and Manner of Committing Offence

Sections 212 and 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 formed part of the statutory rules governing the contents and particulars of a criminal charge. They required a charge to give the accused reasonably sufficient notice of the accusation and, where ordinary particulars were not enough, to explain the manner in which the alleged offence was committed.

Applicability: This article explains the CrPC position applicable before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The CrPC has been repealed, subject to the saving of pending appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations under Section 531 of the BNSS. For such saved proceedings, the CrPC may continue to govern.

Meaning and purpose of particulars in a criminal charge

A criminal charge is intended to inform the accused, with reasonable clarity, of the accusation that must be answered. Section 211 CrPC dealt with the basic contents of a charge. Section 212 supplemented that requirement by identifying particulars of time, place, person or property that should ordinarily be stated. Section 213 required additional particulars about the manner of commission where Sections 211 and 212 alone did not provide sufficient notice.

Section 212 CrPC - Particulars as to time, place and person

Section 212(1): The charge must contain particulars concerning the time and place of the alleged offence and the person, if any, against whom, or the thing, if any, in respect of which, the offence was committed. The required degree of detail is that which is reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

The provision therefore focuses on adequate notice rather than unnecessary technical detail. The particulars should identify the alleged occurrence sufficiently for the accused to understand the case and prepare a defence.

Special rule for criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation

Section 212(2): Where the accusation concerns criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, the charge may specify the gross sum or describe the movable property and state the period during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Particular items or exact dates need not be separately specified.

The charge so framed is treated as a charge of one offence for the purpose of Section 219 CrPC. However, the period between the first and last dates stated in the charge must not exceed one year.

This statutory relaxation was designed for cases involving a series of transactions where item-by-item pleading could be impracticable, while retaining the one-year limitation prescribed by the proviso.

Section 213 CrPC - When manner of committing offence must be stated

Section 213 applies when the nature of the case is such that the particulars required by Sections 211 and 212 do not, by themselves, give the accused sufficient notice of the accusation. In that situation, the charge must also contain sufficient particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed.

The central test is therefore whether the accused receives sufficient notice. Some offences can be adequately identified by stating the offence, time, place and victim or property. Others require additional factual particulars explaining how the alleged offence was carried out.

Illustrations under Section 213

  1. If A is accused of theft of a specified article at a specified time and place, the charge need not state the manner in which the theft was effected.
  2. If A is accused of cheating B at a given time and place, the charge must state the manner in which A allegedly cheated B.
  3. If A is accused of giving false evidence at a given time and place, the charge must identify the portion of the evidence alleged to be false.
  4. If A is accused of obstructing B, a public servant, in the discharge of public functions, the charge must state the manner in which the obstruction was allegedly caused.
  5. If A is accused of murdering B at a given time and place, the charge need not state the manner in which A allegedly committed the murder.
  6. If A is accused of disobeying a direction of law with intent to save B from punishment, the charge must state the disobedience alleged and the law said to have been infringed.

Relationship between Sections 211, 212 and 213 CrPC

These provisions operated together. Section 211 CrPC prescribed the essential contents of a charge. Section 212 required sufficient particulars of the alleged occurrence. Section 213 added particulars of the manner of commission when the information supplied under Sections 211 and 212 was not enough to give adequate notice.

Accordingly, the drafting of a charge was not governed merely by the name of the offence. The court had to ensure that the charge, read as a whole, conveyed the accusation with enough specificity for the accused to know the case to be met.

Position after commencement of BNSS

With effect from 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the CrPC for proceedings governed by the new law. Section 531 BNSS contains the repeal and savings provisions. This page remains relevant to proceedings that continue under the saved CrPC framework and to the interpretation of charges framed under the earlier Code.

Legal context checked for the pre-BNSS CrPC framework and the statutory transition under BNSS.