Section 215: Effect of errors

Q: What does Section 215 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deal with?

Section 215 CrPC pertains to "Effect of errors". It is part of the The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a legislation enacted by the Parliament of India. Section 215 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) governs effect of errors. As verified on 19 May 2026.

Q: Is Section 215 CrPC still in force?

Yes, Section 215 of the The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is currently in force across the Republic of India.

Q: What is धारा 215 CrPC?

धारा 215 CrPC is the Devanagari Hindi reference for Section 215 of the The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 215 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) governs effect of errors. As verified on 19 May 2026.

Q: What is Dhara 215 CrPC?

Dhara 215 CrPC is the Roman Hindi reference for Section 215 of the The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. "Dhara" means "Section" in Hindi. Section 215 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) governs effect of errors. As verified on 19 May 2026.

Q: How to cite Section 215 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

Cite as: "Section 215, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)" in legal briefs. For academic writing, use the BlueBook format: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 215 (India).

Law on Tips Editorial Board

- 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.

Illustrations

(a) A is charged under section 242 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), with "having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when be became possessed thereof that such coin was counterfeit ", the word "fraudulently " being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission, the error shall not be regarded as material.

(b) A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge, or is set out incorrectly. A defends himself, calls witnesses and gives his own account of the transaction. The Court may infer from this that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating is not material.

(c) A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge. There were many transactions between A and B, and A had no means of knowing to which of them the charge referred, and offered no defence. The Court may infer from such facts that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating was, in the case, a material error.

(d) A is charged with the murder of Khoda Baksh on the 21st January, 1882. In fact, the murdered person's name was Haider Baksh, and the date of the murder was the 20th January, 1882. A was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the case of Haider Baksh. The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.

(e) A was charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th January, 1882, and Khoda Baksh (who tried to arrest him for that murder) on the 21st January, 1882. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh he was tried for the murder or Khoda Baksh. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Haider Baksh. The Court may infer from this that A was misled, and that the error was material.