ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter), by the revision petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.507/2019 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1388/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – VIII, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The revision petitioner herein assails Annexure A4, the court charge framed for the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 354D r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 4. Going by Annexure A4 order, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on each head, all the offences were clubbed together as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner herein is the 3rd accused. The charge also framed in Malayalam language. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also conceded the legal position that, for distinct offence, there shall be separate charge. 6. Now, the questions require consideration are; 1) What are the essentials to be stated in a court charge? and 2) In which language court charge shall be framed? 7. Section 211 of the Cr.P.C. deals with contents of charge and Section 212 of the Cr.P.C. deals with particulars as to time, place and person to be included in the charge. As per Section 213 of the Cr.P.C., the manner of committing offence must also be stated. Charge also should contain the offence punishable as per Section 214 of the Cr.P.C. Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing charge in sessions case and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing of charge in warrant trial. 8. Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C. read as under: 211. Contents of charge.—(1) Every charge under this Code 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. (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. 212. Particulars as to time, place and person.—(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 107 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 219: Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year. 213. 213. When manner of committing offence must be stated.—When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 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. 214. Words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable.—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. 9. As per Section 218 of the Cr.P.C., for every distinct offence, of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, subject to Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Cr.P.C. As per Section 211(6) of the Cr.P.C., the charge shall be written in the language of the court. 10. Going by Annexure A4, charge framed clubbing all the offences together without framing distinct charge for distinct offences. Charge also framed in Malayalam language. In the decision in V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. reported in [1980 Supp Supreme Court Cases 92] in page 150, the Apex Court observed that the purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial. 11. Therefore, Annexure A4 found to be unsustainable and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. 12. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner further that, no offence, prima facie, made out against the revision petitioner/3rd accused, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there are sufficient materials, prima facie, to show that the revision petitioner, after sharing common intention with accused Nos.1 and 2, committed the offences. Therefore, this challenge found as not sustainable. 13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed, with direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam to frame proper charge in terms of the law extracted hereinabove and proceed further, as per law. Therefore, this challenge found as not sustainable. 13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed, with direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam to frame proper charge in terms of the law extracted hereinabove and proceed further, as per law. It is also ordered that, before framing charge, an opportunity of hearing to be given to the revision petitioner herein, to submit his version, in accordance with law.