Section 235 BNSS: Particulars as to time, place and person (Formerly Section 212 CrPC)

Section 235 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Particulars as to time, place and person

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 235

Section 235 prescribes that the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person against whom, or the thing in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice (replacing Section 212 CrPC).

Particulars of Time & Place: Approximate date, time, and precise geographical location.
Targeted Victim/Property: Name of victim or description of property stolen or damaged.
Gross Sum in Financial Fraud: In criminal breach of trust or misappropriation, sufficient to specify the gross sum embezzled and dates between which committed (within one year), without specifying particular items.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC 116: Affirmed that specifying time, place, and victim protects the accused from vague, roving criminal allegations.
State of Bombay v. Umarsaheb Buransaheb Inamdar AIR 1962 SC 1153: The Supreme Court held that the gross sum proviso enables corporate and bank embezzlement trials to proceed on aggregate annual defalcations.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In financial fraud trials, check the period of embezzlement stated in the charge. Under Section 235(2), the period between the first and last dates included in the charge cannot exceed one year. Charges spanning multiple years in a single count violate the section.