Clause 127

No error in stating either the offence or the particulars that must be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those details shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by that error or omission.Illustrations(a)A is charged under section 242 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) with “having been in possession of a counterfeit coin having known at the time when he became possessed of it that the coin was counterfeit”, but the word “fraudulently” is omitted from the charge. Only if A was actually misled by this omission may the error be regarded as material.(b)A is charged with cheating B. How he cheated B is not stated in the charge or is stated incorrectly. A defends himself, calls witnesses and gives his own account of the transaction. The court may infer from this that omitting to state, or stating incorrectly, how B was cheated is not a material error.(c)A is charged with cheating B. How he cheated B is not stated 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 those facts that omitting to state how B was cheated was a material error.(d)A was charged with murdering Tan Ah Teck on 5 June 1996 and Tan Ah Tuck, who tried to arrest him for that murder, on 6 June 1996. While charged with murdering Tan Ah Teck, A was tried for the murder of Tan Ah Tuck. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Tan Ah Teck. The court may infer from this that A was misled and that the error was material.