156. Effect of errors

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 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.

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.

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.

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 charged with murdering Jamil Samad on 5th June 1984 and with murdering