Section 192 — No Judgment Beyond the Charge
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามมิให้พิพากษา หรือสั่ง เกินคำขอ
หรือที่มิได้กล่าวในฟ้องถ้าศาลเห็นว่าข้อเท็จจริงตามที่ปรากฏในการพิจารณาแตกต่างกับข้อเท็จจริงดังที่กล่าวในฟ้อง
ให้ศาลยกฟ้องคดีนั้น เว้นแต่ข้อแตกต่างนั้นมิใช่ในข้อสาระสำคัญและทั้งจำเลยมิได้หลงต่อสู้
ศาลจะลงโทษจำเลยตามข้อเท็จจริงที่ได้ความนั้นก็ได้ ในกรณีที่ข้อแตกต่างนั้นเป็นเพียงรายละเอียด เช่น เกี่ยวกับเวลาหรือสถานที่กระทำความผิดหรือต่างกันระหว่างการกระทำผิดฐานลักทรัพย์ กรรโชก รีดเอาทรัพย์ ฉ้อโกง โกงเจ้าหนี้ ยักยอก รับของโจร และทำให้เสียทรัพย์ หรือต่างกันระหว่างการกระทำผิดโดยเจตนากับประมาท มิให้ถือว่าต่างกันในข้อสาระสำคัญ ทั้งมิให้ถือว่าข้อที่พิจารณาได้ความนั้นเป็นเรื่องเกินคำขอหรือเป็นเรื่องที่โจทก์ไม่ประสงค์ให้ลงโทษ เว้นแต่จะปรากฏแก่ศาลว่าการที่ฟ้องผิดไปเป็นเหตุให้จำเลยหลงต่อสู้ แต่ทั้งนี้ศาลจะลงโทษจำเลยเกินอัตราโทษที่กฎหมายกำหนดไว้สำหรับความผิดที่โจทก์ฟ้องไม่ได้ ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าข้อเท็จจริงบางข้อดังกล่าวในฟ้อง
และตามที่ปรากฏในทางพิจารณาไม่ใช่เป็นเรื่องที่โจทก์ประสงค์ให้ลงโทษ
ห้ามมิให้ศาลลงโทษจำเลยในข้อเท็จจริงนั้น ๆถ้าศาลเห็นว่าข้อเท็จจริงตามฟ้องนั้นโจทก์สืบสม
แต่โจทก์อ้างฐานความผิดหรือบทมาตราผิด
ศาลมีอำนาจลงโทษจำเลยตามฐานความผิดที่ถูกต้องได้ถ้าความผิดตามที่ฟ้องนั้นรวมการกระทำหลายอย่าง
แต่ละอย่างอาจเป็นความผิดได้อยู่ในตัวเอง
ศาลจะลงโทษจำเลยในการกระทำผิดอย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดตามที่พิจารณาได้ความก็ได้
English translation
The court shall not render a judgment or order exceeding the request or on a matter not stated in the charge. If the court is of the opinion that the facts appearing in the trial differ from the facts stated in the charge, the court shall dismiss the case, unless such difference is not material and the defendant was not misled in his defense; the court may punish the defendant according to the facts so established. Where the difference is merely a detail, such as concerning the time or place of the commission of the offense, or a difference among the offenses of theft, extortion, blackmail, fraud, defrauding creditors, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, and causing damage to property, or a difference between an intentional and a negligent act, it shall not be deemed a material difference, and the matter so established shall not be deemed to exceed the request or to be a matter the prosecutor did not intend to be punished, unless it appears to the court that the erroneous charge caused the defendant to be misled in his defense; provided, however, that the court shall not punish the defendant beyond the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged by the prosecutor. If the court is of the opinion that certain facts stated in the charge and appearing in the trial are not matters the prosecutor intended to be punished, the court shall not punish the defendant on those facts. If the court is of the opinion that the prosecutor has duly proved the facts stated in the charge, but the prosecutor cited the wrong category of offense or the wrong section, the court has the power to punish the defendant under the correct category of offense. If the offense charged comprises several acts, each of which may itself constitute an offense, the court may punish the defendant for any one of those acts as established in the trial.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 192 is a cornerstone of the accusatorial framework in Thai criminal procedure: it binds the court to the prosecution's charge and forbids conviction on matters not pleaded or beyond what was sought. The general rule is dismissal where the proved facts differ from the charge, but the section builds in important exceptions. A difference is not material, and does not exceed the request, where it is only a detail (time or place) or falls within the enumerated cluster of property offenses (theft, extortion, blackmail, fraud, defrauding creditors, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, and causing damage to property) or between intentional and negligent conduct, provided the defendant was not misled in his defense. Two further powers appear here: the court may re-characterize a wrongly cited offense or section on the same proved facts, and where the charge covers several self-standing acts it may convict on any one of them. The controlling limit throughout is that the penalty may never exceed the statutory maximum for the offense actually charged.
Why this matters in practice
For defendants, this section is a strong protection: you can only be convicted of what you were charged with, and the court cannot spring an unpleaded case on you or exceed the maximum penalty for the charged offense. The main exception to watch is the property-offense cluster, where being charged with theft but convicted of embezzlement (or vice versa) is treated as a non-material difference, so a defense built solely on the label may fail. If your defense genuinely depended on how the charge was framed and you were misled, that becomes a key appeal point. Because these distinctions decide outcomes, get the charge analyzed early through a paid consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3672/2568 (2025)
A difference between theft and embezzlement is not a material difference under Section 192 paragraph 3, so a defendant charged with one may be convicted of the other unless the erroneous charge misled his defense.
The victim transferred money into the accounts of the defendant and four others, who withdrew it and handed it to the defendant, but he did not deliver it to the victim. Although these facts differed from the charge, the Supreme Court applied Section 192 paragraph 3, treating the theft/embezzlement difference as non-material; since the defendant himself admitted the transfers in his evidence, he was not misled in his defense.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 809/2568 (2025)
Section 192 paragraph 3 defines what counts as a material difference in paragraph 2; among the listed property offenses the difference is a mere detail, so a court may convict of embezzlement even where the charge framed the facts differently.
The defendant, entrusted with the complainant's government lottery tickets, dishonestly took them for himself or a third party, which the court held constituted embezzlement under Penal Code Section 352 paragraph 1. The Supreme Court explained that Section 192 paragraph 3 expands the meaning of material difference in paragraph 2, so the court had the power to convict of embezzlement.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7422/2568 (2025)
Applying a later, more favorable penalty provision to the defendant is not a judgment exceeding the request or on a matter outside the charge under Section 192 paragraph 1.
Even though the amended law was not the law in force at the time of the offense and no charge notice covered the new aggravating element, the Supreme Court re-characterized the penalty under the Narcotics Code provision in the part favorable to the defendant. It held this was not a judgment exceeding the request or outside the charge under Section 192 paragraph 1, and partly upheld the defendant's appeal.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can a Thai court convict me of a crime I was not charged with?
Generally no. Section 192 bars judgment beyond the charge, but it allows conviction on a closely related property offense (for example embezzlement instead of theft) or correction of a wrongly cited section, as long as the difference is not material and you were not misled.
Can the court impose a heavier penalty than the offense charged allows?
No. Section 192 expressly forbids the court from punishing beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the offense the prosecutor charged.
What happens if the prosecutor cites the wrong legal section?
If the facts in the charge are duly proved but the wrong offense category or section was cited, the court may still convict under the correct provision, without exceeding the charged offense's maximum penalty.