Section 154
When manner of committing offence must be stated
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 152 and 153 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.
108
Criminal Procedure Code
Illustrations
(a)
A is accused of the theft of a certain article at a certain time and place. The charge need not set out the manner in which the theft was effected.
(6)
A is accused of cheating B at a given time and place. The charge must set out the manner in which A cheated B.
(c)
A is accused of giving false evidence at a given time and place. The charge must set out that portion of the evidence given by A which is alleged to be false.
(d)
A is accused of obstructing B, a public servant, in the discharge of his public functions at a given time and place. The charge must set out the manner in which A obstructed B in the discharge of his functions.
(e)
A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place. The charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B.
0 A is accused of disobeying a direction of the law with intent to save B from punishment. The charge must set out the disobedience charged and the law infringed.
Sense of words used in charge to describe offence 155.
In every charge, words used in describing an offence are deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable.
Effect of errors 156.
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.
Illustrations
(a)
A is charged under section 243 of the Penal Code (Chapter 22) with "having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he 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 fiom 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 this case, a material error.
Criminal Procedure Code
CAP. 7 109
a
(d)
A is charged with the murder of Johan Samad on 6th June 1984. In fact the murdered person's name was Jamil Samad and the date of the murder was 5th June 1984.
A was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry before the
Magistrate which referred exclusively to the case of Jamil Samad. 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 Jamil Samad on 5th June 1984 and with murdering
Johan Samad (who tried to arrest him for the murder of Jamil Samad) on 6th June 1984.
When charged with the murder of Jamil Samad, he was tried for the murder of Johan
Samad. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Jamil Samad.
The Court may infer from this that A was misled and that the error was material.
•