Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 251
Framing of charge
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either physically or through audio-video electronic means and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
Why this exists
This is the formal moment a criminal trial in the Sessions Court truly begins - before this, the judge is only checking whether there is a real case to answer. Framing a charge tells the accused precisely what crime they must defend against, which is basic fairness. The section also lets serious-sounding cases that turn out to be minor be sent down to a Magistrate instead of clogging the Sessions Court, and BNSS added the new 60-day deadline for framing charges to speed up long-delayed trials. It corresponds to section 228 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, updated with video-conferencing options and a time limit.
How courts read it
Under the equivalent provision in the earlier Code, courts held that at this stage the judge only needs to see a strong suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt - the classic test (from rulings like Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal) is whether the material, if unrebutted, would make out a case, not whether conviction is certain. Courts have also held that once framed, a charge should name the specific offence and facts clearly enough for the accused to prepare a defence, and that curable defects in a charge do not automatically void a trial.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Framing a charge means the court has already decided the person is guilty.
Fact: Framing a charge only means the judge sees enough grounds to hold a trial - guilt is decided later, after evidence is heard.