No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLR No. 449 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2025, State Vs. Deepak Khatri, whereby, the charges have been framed against the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that while framing the charges, the procedure, as prescribed under Chapter XVIII of BNSS have not been followed. Section 234 of BNSS relates to contents of the charge. For ready reference, Section 234 of BNSS is extracted hereinbelow:- “234. (1) Every charge under this Sanhita shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only. (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit, to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.” 5. Section 235 of BNSS deals with particulars of time, place and person, which read as under: “ 235. (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 242: Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.” 6. Section 237 of BNSS deals with the words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable, which reads as under: “237. In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable.” 7. Section 238 of BNSS relates to effect of errors, which reads as under: “238. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.” 8. On this basis, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that neither the time nor the place of the alleged offence and other relevant points on the basis of which the charges were framed, have been mentioned in the charge. He has further submitted that the manner in which charges are to be framed is provided in Form No. 33 of the BNSS. 9. Learned State Counsel was directed to get instructions in the matter. They have fairly conceded that the provisions, as prescribed under Chapter XVIII of BNSS have not been followed while framing the charges. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Considering the aforesaid submission, the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2025, State Vs. Deepak Khatri is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun to frame the charges afresh, as per the procedure prescribed under the BNSS. 12. With the above observation, the criminal revision stands disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.06.2026 Ujjwal