Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- Option 1 says the charge has to set out how the theft was planned and carried out.

- Option 2 says the charge doesn’t have to spell out the details of how it happened—just the core facts (what, when, where).

- Option 3 says it can be either (A) or (B).

- Option 4 says none of them are right.

Here’s what you need to know: Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that when the particulars (like time, place, article stolen) aren’t enough to give the accused a clear idea of what they’re facing, then the manner of the crime should also be mentioned. But if the simple facts are clear, then you don’t need all the details. So, the correct answer is:

Option 2: The charge need not set out the manner in which the theft was effected—unless it’s necessary for clarity.