law: Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973
  
  215.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, and
  
  it has occasioned a failure of justice.
  
  Illustrations
  
  
  (a) A is charged under section 242 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860.) 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
  
  from 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
  
  defense. The Court may infer from such facts that the omission to set out the
  
  manner of the cheating was, in the case, a material error.
  (d) A is charged with the murder of Khoda Baksh on the 21st January, 1882.In
  
  fact, the murdered person's name was Haidar Baksh, and the date of the murder
  
  was the 20th January, 1882.A was never charged with any murder but one, and had
  
  heard the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the case
  
  of Haidar Baksh. 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 Haidar Baksh on the 20th January, 1882, and
  
  Khoda Baksh (who tried to arrest him for that murder) on the 21st January,
  
  1882.When charged for the murder of Haidar Baksh, he was tried for the murder
  
  of Khoda Baksh.The witnesses present in his defense were witnesses in the case
  
  of Haidar Baksh.The Court may infer from this that A was misled, and that the
  
  error was material.