Section 223 and 224 CrPC: Persons Who May Be Charged Jointly and Withdrawal of Remaining Charges

Sections 223 and 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 formed part of the rules governing joinder of charges before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force. Section 223 identified the categories of accused persons who could be charged and tried together. Section 224 dealt with withdrawal or stay of remaining charges after conviction on one or more heads of charge.

Historical-law context: This article explains the CrPC provisions as applicable before implementation of the BNSS on 1 July 2024. Under the present BNSS framework, the corresponding provisions are Sections 246 and 247.

Meaning and purpose of joinder of accused persons

The ordinary object of rules relating to charges is to give an accused clear notice of the accusation and to ensure a fair trial. A joint trial is an exception permitted where the accused persons or offences are sufficiently connected. Section 223 CrPC specified the circumstances in which several persons could be charged and tried together instead of holding separate trials.

Section 223 CrPC: What persons may be charged jointly

Section 223 permitted the following categories of persons to be charged and tried together:

  1. Same offence in the same transaction: persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction.
  2. Principal offence, abetment or attempt: persons accused of an offence together with persons accused of abetting or attempting that offence.
  3. Offences of the same kind committed jointly: persons accused jointly of more than one offence of the same kind within the meaning of Section 219 CrPC, committed within twelve months.
  4. Different offences in the same transaction: persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
  5. Property offences and connected receivers: persons accused of theft, extortion, cheating or criminal misappropriation together with persons accused of receiving, retaining, disposing of or concealing property alleged to have been transferred through such offence, including related abetment or attempt.
  6. Stolen property offences: persons accused under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or either provision, in respect of stolen property whose possession was transferred by one offence.
  7. Counterfeit coin offences: persons accused of offences under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, together with persons accused of another offence under that Chapter concerning the same coin, including abetment or attempt.

Proviso allowing a joint trial by consent

Even where persons charged with separate offences did not fall within the listed categories, the Magistrate or Court of Session could try them together if they applied in writing for a joint trial, the Court was satisfied that none would be prejudicially affected, and a joint trial was expedient. Thus, written consent alone was not sufficient; the Court also had to consider prejudice and expediency.

Important expressions in Section 223 CrPC

Same transaction: The expression is used to identify offences or acts having such factual connection that they may appropriately be dealt with in one trial. The statutory text does not provide a standalone definition in Section 223; its application depends on the connection between the acts and offences in the facts of the case.

Offence of the same kind: Section 219 CrPC treated offences as being of the same kind when they were punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or another special or local law, subject to the statutory explanation and deeming provisions.

Prejudice: The proviso required the Court to be satisfied that a joint trial requested by persons outside the specified categories would not prejudicially affect them. This protected the fairness of the trial despite the parties' written request.

Section 224 CrPC: Withdrawal of remaining charges after conviction

Where a charge containing more than one head was framed against the same person and a conviction had been recorded on one or more heads, the complainant or officer conducting the prosecution could, with the Court's consent, withdraw the remaining charge or charges. The Court could also, on its own accord, stay the inquiry into or trial of the remaining charges.

A withdrawal under Section 224 had the effect of an acquittal on the withdrawn charge or charges. If the conviction on which the withdrawal was based was later set aside, the Court could, subject to the order of the Court setting aside the conviction, proceed with the inquiry or trial of the charges previously withdrawn.

Practical effect of Sections 223 and 224 CrPC

Section 223 addressed who could be tried together, while Section 224 addressed what could happen to unresolved heads of charge after a conviction. Read with the other provisions on joinder of charges, these sections sought to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings while preserving fairness to the accused.

Position after implementation of BNSS

For the current procedural law, Section 223 CrPC corresponds to Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 224 CrPC corresponds to Section 247 BNSS. The subject matter is substantially carried forward, with references updated to the new criminal codes. For proceedings governed by the earlier Code, the applicable saving and transitional provisions should be considered in the context of the particular case.

This page is a legal information resource and should be read with the statutory text and applicable judicial decisions.