(hapter

21

Trial
Procedures: Trial of Sumr
imons

and Summary Trial

Cases

21.1
Scopeof the chapter case relating to an offence, and not being a
summons case means a
that it is a caserelating to an offence not
A case.1 This then means
warrant
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
punishable with death, prescribed for summons cases
gCeeding two years. The trial procedure 259 and has been discussed in Part
e mainly contained in Sections 25I to
A tried with much less formality than
of this chapter. Summons cases aretheir trial is less elaborate. Even the
warrant cases, and the manner of
less fornal. As observed
method of preparing the record (of evidence) is
by the Law Commission:
very serious but
the scheme is simple, and the intention clearly is that these not how it should
numerous cases should be decided quickly. We agree that this is of these
be. All the essentials of a fair trial are present here, and the nature
cases is such that a more elaborate method would only add to the expense and
perhaps harassment of the parties without substantially aiding the cause of
justice.
Part Bof this chapter deals with summary trials, the procedure for which
15 contained in Sections 260 to 265. In respect of certain petty cases
Ihciuding mnostly summons cases and afew specific warrant cases, the
Magistrate concerned has been given discretion to try these cases in a
1. See
2. Thissupra, S. 2(x), para. 5.2.
will be obvious after considering the detention of a warrant case given in S. 2(w),
see
Supra, para. 5.2.
D. 4ISt
Report, p. I64, para. 20.I.
568 Chapter 21 Trial Proccdures: Trial of Summons Cases and
Summary Trial
summary way. The procedure for summary trials is
seribed for the trial of a summons case but in an
Commission in this connection has observed: esserntformial y (ne
abridged pr
From the point of view of procedure, a summary trial hel
is
the regular trial and is resorted to in order to save time an
Short-cnts in procedure in criminal cases are not in abridged form
trying
of the sa feguards provided as to the type of judicial without risks: petty Case,
this power, the nature of the offences that may be so officers who hut in vIe
that may be inflicted in such trials, tried and the may exercKe
summary jurisdiction is
A
PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL OF A SUM
punshment
justifiable.!
MONS CASr
21.2 Initial steps in the trial
(a)
Explaining the
in a summons case thesubstance of the accusation to the
the
and particulars
accused appears or is
of the brought before the
he shall be askedoffence of which he is accused shall be accused.Magi-whenstrate,
make, but it shall not bewhether he pleads guilty, or has anystated to him.
The section only necessary to framne a formnal charge. [S.defence to
but it does not dispenses with a formal charge in a 281l
for which the dispense with the statement of the summons case.
accused
accused under the section is to is to be dealt particulars
with. The purpose of of the offence
accused should have a clear apprise himn of the charge against questioning the
to be put on the
trial, and statement
2) made to him: ) that hehim. is
The
offence with the as to the
offence or facts about
show the particulars commission
which
of which he is accused.5 The constituting the
were explained or record
Magistrate.is stated to the accused bymustthe
There a sharp
of
non-compliance divergence of opinion in the
High Courts are of the provisions of Section High
of the
25I.
Court on the ettect
lars of an offence to view that the mere The majority of the
ating the the accused
under omission to state the
partteu
to the trial, provided no Section 25I 0S not an illegality vit
mere accused and the prejudice can be shown to have
accused has been examined under been It is caused
irregularity
4. Ibid, p. curable under Section 465." Section 313:
5. State ofI78, para. 22.1. Further, in a case instiuted
Mysore v. Shivanna, I972
6. 1973 Cri LJ 358 (Mad). Cri LJ
Mulkraj Chabra v. I46, II47-48 (Mys); Chinnaswamy v. State,
Nagpur Corpn.,
Kerala v. Raman Nair,
7.
Manbodh Biswal v. Samaru(r962) I Cri (1965) I
LI 42.9, Cri LJ I48, I49: AlR 1965 Bom 30; State of
Radhamma,
(1919) 1975
2o Cri LJ 395:Cri LJ I Pradhan, 98o
43I: AlR 1962 Ker 78.
287, 1289 (AP); Cri LJ IQ23 (Ori); G. Srinivusa Rao v. G.
1932 Nag 127; AlR 1919 Mad s2: Public v. Prosecutor
v. Sankarlingam Moopan,
1949 Pat 323, Rajeshwara Prasad Labani 33 Cri LJ 938, 940:AIR
Ram v. 678-79;
Prasanna Abmed v. Singh
State,
v.
ProvinceKbushal,
of
((1932)
Bibar, (I949) so Cri LJ 676:
AIR

Bhanwarlal, Kumar,LJ 1953 Cri LJ

1957 Cri 1955 Cri LJ Io66, 1067: AIR 19$5 Hyd 74; Nayan
994, 996: AlR I574, I575: AIK I953 Ass 61; State of Rajasthan v.
 Summong Case S69
every Summons or warrant issued
made in writing,
accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
wyplaint
must beentered appearance in answer to such sum.
accused
the fairidea of the allegations made against him
would havea was 0ssued. This factor will haveto be
sumimons
di,
he the while
deciding the question of prejudice to the
onsideration
Section465.°
cnablesa Magistrate issuing asummons for an accused
personalattendance and to
permit himto appear by
his likely to be used in summons cases. In
most
of the accused is dispensed with, his
with
lhis
power isattendance
utr.
personal
the charge", or make an answer tothe
nkrthe stead,
pleadto
s I1 Magistrate
warrantcaseinstitutedlon a police report the
allegations,
Of
i tral
t complied withthe provisions of Section 207
ot
a
has commencementofthe
himself that he at the
tT copies to the accused a police reportthere is no
of
oeunplysuinmons case instituted on
then free copies have to besup-
izatriallofa Magistrate. Even provisions of Section 207.13
cast on
the the mandatory under Section 25I, the
r dutraccusedinview of offence take
othe there a denial of the prosecution and to
is the
to hear The Code does not warrant
210nCe to proceed 14

-mte isrequired Section 254- accused person.

evidence under of the his
Cution guilt on the part convicted even on
of be offence
eQuent admissionan accused may not notmake out an
that does
ben opined prosecution report
the formal charge
S0n ofguiltif framea
2 Statute15 not
necessaryto
however, the provi
is
summonscaseit
tnalofa provisions of Sections
2II to2I3; personsareapplicable
of
trial
-gtothe chargesand joint
of
Saingtojoinder summons cases. State,19$3
oftrials of Singhv.
Mastan I671: AIR1967
Cal r96;
AIR r927 I967CriLJ
accused).
Is5, If6: Shivappa, the
L:l Singb, (r927)28 Cri LJSiddappa v. Patel fact causedto
I25; prejudice was in
g6AIR 1953 Pepsu held that
: . Here the court 27
ra, S. 204l3), para. IIL4. LJ 1372 (Gau). Emperor, (1926)1976
Cri Dubash v. Officer,
Nath v. Bora, I973 Enforcement
* a,para. Bapiram
II.5. Dorabshah
Bomonii
Labour
At Report, p. I65, para. 20.4;218; S.P. Sinhav. 1959 Mad v.
4os;
441-42: AIR I926 Bom AIR International
Io93:
j-6, ¬8 (Cal). LJ
Io92, Viniyoga
a,S. 238, para. 20.2(I). I959 Cri
observationsin
H re,
upra, para. II7; see also, Veerappa,(Mad);
3$8 Chanda
awamy v.
198; Cri LÊState,
I973 Cri LÊ
761, 766-67 (Del). lndramaniv.
SSCrn
(1954)
(Ori).
702-03:
1.Te, 1975 Cri LJ I13 (Mad). LJ1417 re,
Sabib,
I992 Cri Cal694, lma
ndrahotaNat
m Sabra
h
v. State of Orissa,
v. Empero,
4I
ILR (1I913)r9r, 192;
K.S.
Biswas1218, 12I9: AIR 1956 Ori
Chapter 21 Trial Procedures: Trial of Summons Cases and
Summary Trial
It has been held by the Supreme Court that
is permissible before recording the plea of the the recall of the summn
discussed below. This would mean that accused
before under
rSreeeccalcotirmdlssm-
plea on the initial questioning under Section 25I,the accused 2
mons can be exercised,17 the power to h
(b) Comviction on plea of guilty.-If the
Magistrate shall record the plea as accused inpleads
nearly as possible
by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him the
words the guilty,
S. uset
Magithsterrateeon. 252||F
the accused pieads guilty, it is imperative that the
the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words shall
This requirement of Section 252 1S not a mere emptyused by the record
matter of substance intended to secure
formalityof abutc useisd.a
proper administration
It is important that the terms of the section are
strictly
because the right of appeal of the accused depends upon
the compliedjusticwie.th
whether he pleaded guilty or not, and it is for this reason that
lature requires that the exact words used by the accused in hithe legis- circumstance
guilty should be as nearly as possible be recorded in his own s pleaof
order to prevent any mistake or misapprehension." If there arelanguage
a numher
in
of accused persons, the plea of each of the accused should
recorded and in his own words after the accusation was read beoverseparately
to each
oneof them. Where there are number of accused persons and the
accusa
tion is read over to them jointly and the Magistrate records their plea of
admission jointly, such admission is bad in law.1 If the facts mentioned
in the "charge" do not constitute the offence, the mere plea of guilty can
not render the accused liable to be convicted on such plea which does not
contain any admission constituting all the ingredients of the offence."
The requirements of Section 252 are mandatory in character and a
violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction
legally invalid,1
The Magistrate has discretion to accept or not to accept the plea ot
guilty. If he decides to accept the plea of guilty he can call evidence to
decide the question of proper sentence.2
LI 7I: AIR I954 Mad 86, 87. See also supra, para. I5.I5. SCC(Cri)
17. Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Mabarashtra, (2004) I3 SCC 324: 2005
242:2004 Cri LJ 4609. Also see, Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7S 330
SCC (Cri) 1927 which was a warrant case.
22; Aithappa
18. Mabant Kaushalaya Das v. State of Madras, I966 Cri LJ 66, 68: AIR I966SC
v. State of Mysore, 1973 CriLJ 36o (Mys). . State
of
19. State of Mysore v. Shivanna, r972 Cri LJ II46, II48 (Mys); Chhotu Bhagirath 1986 All
I270: AlR
Gujarat, I972 Cri LJ S48, 550(Guj); Hansraj v. State, 1956 Cri LJ I267, CriLJ 28;7(Bom).
641; see also, Anand Vithoba Lobkare v. State of Maharashtra, I999
20. State of M.P. v. Kapurchand, 1973 Cri LJ 417, 419 (MP). 22: Chotu
68: AIR I966SC
21. Mahant Kaushalaya Das v. State of Madras, I966 Cri LÊ 66,
Bom19f
Bhagirath v. State of Gujarat, 1972 Cri LJ s48, 55o-sI (Gu)). AIR I93I
22. Emperor v. Janardan Kashinath Abbyankar, (1931) 32 Cri !LJ 719, 720:
(FB).
 Betore Cceptingthe plea of guilty it is the bounden dury of he
himsclf+hat the
to
Magistrate
the
satisfy
substance of the
accusation concerned acCused has
understrnd
wrncd
aCUscdhas after nderstanding
or
chargC against
the same pleadedhimguilty
and and con:
the alr
the conscqucnces that follow
2)
h
Ithe
/ Magistrate accepts the plea of guilty and convicts the accused
realising
XrsO1,hechall pass sentence on him according to law unless he pro-
accordance withthe provisions of Section 325 or
iin Section ,665
cds
may convict the accused of any
A Magistrate
which from the facts offence triable under this
the chapter,
may be the nature of the
admitted he appears to have
part
of
ommitted
whatever
satisfied that the accused
complaint or surnmons,
further discussedwould not be prejudiced
Magistrateis
255(3)] This will be in para. 21.6\c).
f the
ghereby.(S. plea of guilty in absence of accused in petty
Conviction
seen earlier in para.
IIL6, it has been provided by
Section 206
cases.
-As
case of certain petty offences, an accused who is willing to
rhatin
the appear in the court either in person or through his
guiltyneed notsatisfies the conditions of that section. The
plead provided he object
pleader toavoid unnecessary trouble to offenders who have commit-
obviouslyis Section 253 pre-
offences and are willing to pay the penalty.?6
whom asummons has been issued
tedpetty procedure where a person to
the 206 has transmitted to the Magistrate his plea of guilty
scribesSection
as follows:
under
appearing before such Magistrate. Section 253 reads
without Section 206 andtheaccused Comviction on
summons has been issued under guilty in absenc
253.(r)
Where a
the charge without appearing before the Magistrate,
guilty to contain
a letter accused in pett
desiresto plead to the Magistrate, by post or by messenger,
summons.
he shall transmit fine specified in the
the amount of convict the accused in his
ing hisplea and also his discretion,
may, in pay the fine specified in
(2) The Magistrate guiltyand sentence him to adjusted
be
absence, on his plea ofamount transmitted by the accused shall
the
the summons, and where a pleader authorised by the
accused in this behalf
record the plea as
towards that fine, or
behalf of the accused,the Magistrate shall
may, in his discretion,
pleads guilty on by the pleader and
the words used sentence him as aforesaid.
nearly as possible inon such plea and
convict the accused Magistrate has been given the
enabling one. The such a plea of
isonly an person on accused
e provision and sentence the accused behalf ofthe
discretion to convict appearing on
lawyer
guilty. The section allows a behalf.
person to plead guilty on his
I482, I484(Kant).
Cri L
Gangai,I979 23.
3. State of Shidlingappa in Chap.
discussed
Karnataka v. Mallappa have been
24.See supra,and para. I4.3(a). andthe sentencing process

13.26.S5e.3, 6041st Report,allied

other matters
para. 20.2.
p. 164,
 Iral
21.3 Hearing of the prosecution cases
(a) Hearing the prosecution,-- If the
accused under the above Section 252 0r
proceedto hear the prosccution. |S.
Magistrat253,e does
Section the
254(1)|
the Hearing the
Magistrate <halhyprl oMaRegigyeirttien
context of the provisiOns means that
to the prosecution and shall allow it to open its
and cireumstances constituting the offence case
1t propOses to prove its case. and stating hygiving tahmedi
(b) Evidence for the prosecution,-TThe whar eyIdeniay
such evidence as may be produced in support Magi
of thestrate shall
The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit,
prosecut
on the io th
n.en
[S.take
tion,1SSue summons
a to any witness application the
any document or thing. (S. 254(2)] Thedirecting him to
of
Magistrate
ing any witness on such application, require that may,
attend or prprooedtxeys
of the witness incurred in the reasonable eexpense
attending for the purposes of
hefore summon.
ited in court. [S. 254(3)]
However, as mentioned earlier, the trial
the be depok.
power under Section 3I2 to order payment on
of reasonable expenses of witness the part of
forgoverthenmen:
poses of trial 28
attending before the Court
pur-
(c) Record of evidence.-In all summons cases tried
the Magistrate shall, as the examination of each before: a
a memorandum of the substance of his
evidence in the
Magismaketrat,
witness proceeds,
court. However, if the Magistrate is unable to make
such language of the
memorandum
himself, he shall, after
recording the reason of inability, cause such
memorandum to be made in writing or from his his
[S. 274()] Such mnemorandum shall be signed by dictation in open cour.
the Magistrate and shall
form part of the record. (S. 274(2)]
The Magistrate is under a legal duty to
a memorandum of the substance of their examine witnesses and to make
COurt 29
evidence in the language of the
Provisionsregarding the interpretation of evidence to the accused or his
pleader in certain cases, [S. 279] and the recording of the remarks respert
ing the demeanour of the witness, [S. 28o] are the same as are applicabe
in respect of evidence recorded in a trial before a Court of Session or in
a trial of a warrant case, and the same have already been discused in
para. 19.3(b)(s) and (7).
(d) Arguments on behalf of the prosecution.-Section 3I4 enablesthe
prosecutor to submit his arguments after the conclusions of the prosecution
and
27. Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg v. State, I959 Cri LJ 978, 979: AIR 1959J&K77: Kazi
127,129.
Khatib Mohamudkban v. Emperor, (1946) 47 Cri LJ 240, 24I: AIR 1945 Nag
28. See supra, para. I6.7.
29. S. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka, 1979 Cri LJ (NOC) I83: (r978) 2 Kant LJ459.
 ot the

before any other

already been
further instep is taken in theProsecution and befenceCan 11
and
discussed para. i6.13. procecdings
/examination.of the accused
for the purpose of
circumstances appcaring in the enabling accused 214
any
afterthe witnesses for the him, the evidence against personally
to
yplain
hdbtore
ARYUid,heis called on for his defence, to question
summons
prosecution
court
havehimheengenerally on
examined
However, In a
hepersonalattendanceofthe accused, the court court case where the
has gothasthedispensed
discretionwithto
the abovementioned
M
with
Section3I3hass already been discussed in detail
lisgense examination
of thein para. r6.9 andthe
accused. (S. 3r3()
Inot be repeated|here once again.
need
cAme

the defence case

Hearingof the accused and
Hearing for the evidence defence.
21.5
Section-After
) examination of the the per-
shall «hear" the
accused,
accused
if any, under
and 313(r)(b), the
Magistrate take all such evidence as he pro-
ducesin
his defence. (S. 254()]
he
The Magistrate may, if thinks fit, on the application of the
ISSUeea sumimon to any
witness
directing him to attend or produce accused,
oument or other thing. S. 254(2)| The Magistrate may, before sumany
moning any witness n such
enses of the witness incurred application, require that the reasonable
in atternding for the purposes of
he deposited in court. (S. 254(3)) However, as the trial
hs DOwerunder Section 3I2 to order mentioned earlier, the court
of reasonable expenses of witnesses payment on the part of government
purposes of trial.31
attending before the court for the
When Section 254(1) requires that the
cused, it certainly means that he should askMagistrate
the
shall hear the
t0 say in his defence against the accused what he has
record against him and the accusedincriminating evidence which is brought
should be
eappearing in evidence against him.The heard on every circum
under this accused must be examined
the entire section whether he offers to produce the defence or not after
amount s prosecution evidence was adduced. Failure to hear the accused
to a
fundamental
Cannot be cured error in a criminal trial andit is an error that
by Section 465.32 However, if the prosecution itself is
unrehable, and cannot Warrant itself conviction of the accused, the mere
Titual of
asking the accused formally whether he wants to be heard and
).
See, S.R.
SeePoorsupran aMal,JhunjbunwalCri llLJa v.5IIB.N.(Raj).Poddar,
, 1988 I988 Cri LJ SI (Cal); also see, Sachchida Nand v.

SL.G.Srinvasa Rao v. G. Radbamma, I975 Cri LJ 1287,I29o(AP).

para. 6.7.
 ary Trial
produce his defence evidence need nÍt be
not serve any useful purpose. 33 observed. Because har wn
(b) Record of evidence for defence,-The
cable in respect of record of evidence for the same
prosecutproviionsons
:
supra, para. 21-3(c), are cqually applicable to the as
dence and the same need not be repcated here.
(c) Argunents,--After the
record of
closure of the defence medenfteInncmeed ev
n

may submit its arguments. This

has already been discussed in para. I6.I 3.
has been provided by
evidSectenceio,nthe3I4dewhifencg.h
Special Course to be adopted by the
considers:
Magistrate.-Where tthe
(a) that he is not having necessary jurisdiction.,
(b) that the case should be committed to S. 322) or
Magstrate
[S. 323] or
the Sessions Court for
(c) that he may not be able to pass sufficiently trial,
follow the procedure applicable in similar severe sentence,, he
or a warrant case betore a Magistrate. circumstances In ashaltriall
21.6 Acquittal or conviction
(a)Acquittal.-If the Magistrate, upon
taking the evidence for the pros.
ecution and for the defence, and such further
on his own motion, cause to be produced, findsevidence, if any, as he mau
the accused not guilty be
shall record an order of acquittal. [S. 255()]
When theprosecutor has sought the assistance of the court for
the attendance of the witnesses, it is not securing
to take steps for securing their attendancepermissible for the court to refuse
and at the same time pass an
order acquitting the accused on the ground that the case fails for want
of evidence. The Magistrate has no
steps for the
discretionary power to refuse to take
attendance of the witnesses to whom the court had already
issued summons on a prior occasion for their
appearance,* and more par
ticularly when he has no material before him to show that there had been
any remissness on the part of the
prosecuting agency.
But if the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the wi
nesses or ask the court to givye them time to do the same, or to ssu
fresh summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. Under ut

33. Raja Ram Trehan v. Sudarshan Singh, 198I Cri

LJ I469,
34. State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma, I973 Cri LJ IO8,I47I (PXH).State of Bibarv. Polo
IO9 (Gau);
Mistry, (r964) 2 Cri LJ I75, I76: AIR 1964 Pat 351; E. Bhoshanamv.. Polla Malliah, 1974
CriLJ of157Karnataka
(AP); see also,
v. A. State of U.198o
P. v. Babu,
Cri LJ I991
40, 4ICri
35. State Devaiah, LJ 99IS. (AII).
(Kant); M. Basappa v. B. Ananda
Rao, 1978 Cri LJ 294, 295 (Kant).
 the Magistrate can
record
fthere is no
an
evidence to
hold the order of acquit al
and sentence, -
ordancewiththe provisions where the 325accusedor Section
guilty. 366 heunder
i
accused guilty, pass
of Section
Magistrate does not proceed
shall,
Whe
h n dtsh e
sentence upon him
referredi to above has already according to law
32f
soction Magistrate convicts the
becen discussed in
accordingtolaw. accused, he is required para.
to passt4.la,
tender, However,
thenature of the offence and the consicircumstances
dering the character
of the caAse,sen-
of thethe
idgemay,insteadof passing the sentence, decide to release the offender,
of
probationgoodconduct under Section 360 or under the
fOttenders.Act,1958.Section 361, as will be seen in Chapter 23,Probation
ordains
on

the
offendersshould, as far as possible, be released under the proba-
that otherlikelaws.
tionor regardingthe delivery and pronouncement ofthe judgement,
Provisionsand content, various directions regarding the sentence and
language
is post-conviction orders that might be passed, compensation and
other theaggrieved party, etc. are all contained in Sections 353 to 365
cOststo discussedlater in Chapter 23.
I be
andwill
not "charged"-A
can be convicted of an offence convict the accused
Accused 355
ld
may under Section 352 or SectionChapter XX of the Code,
Magistrate under this chapter i.e.
df any offence triable proved he
facts admitted or complaint
chapter], which trom the
and Part A of this ofthe
committed, whatever may be the nature
accused would not be
abpears to have Magistrate is satisfied that the
orsummons, if the 25sl3)]
prejudiced thereby. [S. 22I(2), a person charged withbeen one offence may
charged but
According to Sectionoffencefor which he mighthave summonscase,
another in a
beconvicted of there may be no charge framed 25s(3) whichsays
As Section triable under
WaS not charged. provision has been madein offence
asomewhat similar the accused "of any he appearsto have
that a Magistrate may convict or proved
facts admitted complaint or
summons".
the intentionofthesec-
this chapter which from the nature ofthe
the
committed whatever may be wide, butitis not triabBeasasummons about
The language used here is very particular offenceunconnectedoffencenever
tion th¡t a person accused of a differentandagainstwhichhe may
Case, can be convicted lof atotally
questionedand Santbammd
which he never have been
mnay seealso, Veerappa,
I640(MP); T.N.v. Setty,
1639, (Ker):StateofSubramanya
LJ v.
6. State of Thawar, I972 Cri LJ247,2so Karnataka
M.P. v. KaluKunju I98r Cri Stateof
Radbamany Amma v. Pillai, Mad26o(FB);
198o Cri LJ(NOC) I5S: AIR 198oKant
198o Cri LJ (NOC) I29: ((198o) I LJ 13.
Oee supra, para.
I5.II·
576 Chapter 21 Trial Proce dures: Trial of Summons Cases and
Summary Irial
have defended himsclf. " Therefore, the words if the
hed that the accused would not be
nifcant and important as they are intended to
the accuscd person.
prejudiced therehy'" Maheg
r
safeguard he
not
mraete
mter
21.7 Non-appearance or death of complainant
lf the summons has been issued on complaint,and on
for the appearance of accused, or any day subsequent thetheraday
the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does
Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything herein not appear
acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it hefore contane b
proper to adtr
the hearing of the case to some other day. However, where
the
ant is represented by a pleader or by the officerconducting thecoprmolosean
tion or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal
of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense
attendance and proceed with the case. (S. 256(1)] The
attendance
his
in one case did not approve of the dismissal of the complaint Supreme Cor
appearance of the complainant at the stage of defence evidence." The
Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that exemption from appearance :
court granted to complainant may be extended to the defendant also
The above provisions contained in Section 256(1) shall, so far as na
be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complaina
is due to his death. [S. 256(2)] In a case wherein the representatives r
the dead complainant did not appear in the court IS times whereas the
defendant appeared, the defendant came to be acquitted. This was uphes
by the Supreme Court.12
Section 256 has already been discussed in detail in supra, para. r".oe
and the same need not be repeated here.

21.8 Withdrawal of complaint

final order is passed in any case under
Ifa complainant, at any time before a there are sufficient grounds
thischapter, satisfies the Magistrate that against the accused, or if tt
permitting him to withdraw his complaint
all. or any of them, the Magistrate may
be more than one accused, against theaccused
withdrawthe same, and shall thereupon acquit
permit him to
withdrawn. (S. 257l
against whom the complaint is so upon a
case instituted wichdrawthe
The question whether in a summons
could be allowedto
complaint, arelative of the complainant c
35+
38. See, 41st Report, pp, 166-67, para. 20.7. AIR 1942 Mad
Ganpati Sa, re, (1942))43
. Cri LJ 85u, 8;3: 2 SCC(Cri 178:
39. See, observations in (2008)
Chandrasekar, (20o8) 4 SCC 67:
40. S. Anand v. Vasumathi LI4244(AP).2008(
8s: 2008 Cri 6f :
LJ 1943. A.P., (2008)3 APLJ SCC (Cri)
41. Hityala Venkatareddy v. State of (20o8) 2
Reddy, (2008) 5 SCC S35:
42. S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami
LJ 2625.
 answeredin
wasof the deceased
.he
negative by the Wihdrawa
complainant wasKarnataka ligh Gourt:l fnmplaine
seCtion
has already been permit ed to
continue
above
"The is
relevant here also. discussed in supra, para. r.4. That
stopproceedingsin certain cases
case instituted
Dwe
tro

Class or
the First other with theotherwise than upon 21.9
Magistrateof
Magistrate, any previous sanctioncomplaint,
Iudicial Magistrate of the a
Chief
stopthe may, for
ndhival

him, proceedings stage without reasons

at any
by and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after
yjudgement
morded
tothe
he
the principal
witnesses
has been pronounci ng
nment
ridenceof
ofacquittal, recorded,
and in any other case, release
effect of
the pronounce
accused, and
a such
judge-
shallhave the
section has been discharge. (S. 258]
rlease
sion, above
thoughrelevant and useful
The
discussed in supra,
here, need not be para. I7.5. This discus-
repeated.
Powerofcourt to convert Summons Cases into warrant cases
course of the trial of a
Wheninthe
summons case relating to an offence 21.10
punishable withimprisonment for a term
othe Magistrate that in the interests ofexceeding six offence
justice the months,should
it appearsbe
triedinnaccordance with the
procedure for the trial of
Magistrate may proceedto rehear the case in the mannerwarrant cases, such
provided by this
Code for the trial of warrant case and may recall any witness who
have been examined. (S. 259] may
gs felt necessary that the Magistrate should have the power to con
rert the summons Case into a warrant case in serious cases if he
it necessary to do sO in the interest of justice.** It may be considers
the case is So converted into a warrant case,
noted that if
the proceedings would com
mence from the start.

Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause 21.11

Section 25o which provides for such
compensation applies to summons
cases as well.4$ The section has already been
discussed in supra, para. 20.I2.
B. SUMMARY TRIALs

Judicial officers empowered to try summarily 21.12

Summary
n trial is an abridged form of regular trial and is ashort-cut
procedure.
43. S. Consi deri ng the risks involved in such short-cuts, it was

5.Se s ReSupra,
\odinatp aCommit ee I997p. xx.Cri LJ 98 (Kant).
4. See, iv. Vijaya M.,
sub-s. (8), S.Report, 20.I2.
250, para.
 Trial
considered necessary that only (senior/and
should bec empowered to try certain petty cases
According to Section 260(1), ekperienced judcoal
notwithstandingsummarity.
the Code

Aat any Chief Judicial Magistrate;

anything Contanea
b) any Metropolitatn Magistrate;
tt any Magistrate of the First (Class specially empowered in
by the High Court, may, if he thinks fit, try in a
this heth
or any ofthe offences mentioned in para. 21.13.
.(S.sum26ol
mary
a Further, the High Court may confer on any
the powers of a Magistrate of the Second Magistrate r| NA
marily any offence which is punishable withClfine
ass power to try
or with
invested w
ment for aterm not exceeding six months with or without
any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence fne ant impri m.
It may be noted here that if any Magistrate not being
empowered
in this behalf tries an offender summarily, then according o
.5.261
Section 46I his proceedings shallbe void. clause (m nt
Simply because a case triable summarily does not necessarilv mese.a
the Judicial Officer empowered to try it in a summary way must
summarily. The Magistrate has the discretion to decide it; the try it
n p r

however, is to be used judicially having regard to the circumstances o discretion,

each case. In serious or complicated cases it would not be just
to have summary trials, 6On the other hand, if an offentecanandbeprre
ope:
summarily then merely because an accused person happens to be agor.
ernment servant and his conviction would result in dismissal from ervie
causing serious loss to him, the Magistrate shall not refuse to try him
summarily,47

21.13 Offences triable in asummnary way

For obvious reasons all offences cannot be made triable summarily. The
risk iFherent in the abridged form of procedure is taken only in respert ot
petty cases withaview to save time.
Any Chief Judicial Magistrate, any Metropolitan Magistrate or at
Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered in ths behalf by
High Court may try in a summary way all or any of the following otten
forlife o
Joffences not punishable with death, imprisonment
imprisonment for a termexceeding two years;
Emperor.
46. Dina Nath v. Emperor, (1913) I4 Cri LJ Ios, IO6: ILR (I913) 35 4All17:; (1921)2/
Rustomji, (I922) 23 Cri LJ 2I, 22 (Bom); Parmeshwar Lall Mitter v. Emperor, Ram
Cri LJ440, 441: AIR r922 Pat 296. Contra,
47. Jagmalaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri LJ 23I4, 2318 (Raj); but see
Lochan v. State, 1978 CriLJ 544, 545 (All).
 underSection 379, Section
480 or
theft(IPC).where the value of
1860
thousandrupees;
the Section
property stoleng8idoes,Penalnot Code, Summary Iriat 79
preevng or retaining stolen property, under exceed
the walue of the property does not Section 411
where
cxceed two IPC.
rupees;
ass1sting n the concealment
dis
or
posal of
t housand
where the value of
such stolen property,
IPC.
Section4I4 under
rwothousarndrupees;
underSections 454 and
property does not exceed
Aoffences 4s6 IPC (i.e.
orhouse-breaking in order to the "lurkingof house-tres-
punishablewith imprisonment", and commission an offence
pass

house-breaking bynight"); "lurking house-trespass or

provoke a
/insult with intent to breach of peace,so6 under
SectionsO4, and criminal intimidation, under theSection IPC,
punishabte with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
twoyears, Or with fine, or with both.
ij/abetment ofany of the foregoing offences;
attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such
um)an
attermptiS an offence;
offence constituted by an act in respect of which a com-
Nany made under Section 20, Cattle-Trespass Act, 187I.
plaint may be
[S. 26o(t))
under
ofence of "insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"impris
The with
(vi) above is punishablemost.
IPC referred to in clause Itcan,
kxtion so4 extend to two years at the
may
Cament for a term which it was not quite neces
clause (i) above and
terefore, be easily covered by
y to include it specially in clause (vi). of the fact whether any
offences irrespective special
Clause (i) refers to all under the Penal Code or any other
offence is committed 21.14
12Ctment 49
trials Sections 262
followed in summary provisions of
rocedure to be specifiedin
subject to the theprocedure as here-
procedure
Sunn0ns case
266.-In trials under Part B of this
chapter followed except
shall be
is Code for trial of summons case mostly war-
the . (S. 262(1)]
natter mentioned. (vilare awarded
clauses(ii)to be
by punishmentthatcan providedby
Cases
nt relaring
covered
to offences maximum imprisonmentas
cases However, as the
three
months'
trom
trial being only 2005.,
with
efect
Act.
(AAmendment)
.Ins hy rthg Procedure
Code of Criminal 1674.1675(HP).
h
Chand y. State. l977 Cri L]
 Cases and
Section 262(2), and as the offences are triable
Summary Trial
Magistrates and other Senior
ent to follow the summons caseMagistrates, has
it only by
procedurc. been special y
advantage would be gained by following theIt was felt
case procedure if such warrant caseS are to be cohatnsidnoerepda,rtia
more
tricd complicated w:

in the caseImprissuonment
mma rly
(b) Punishmentawardable.-No
sentence
exceeding three months shall be passed of only
Part this chapter. 262(2)]| However, there any
Bof (S. of
isis no restriction
imposed accordance with ConvictkM undey
amount of fine that can be in
(c)
Summary trial to be given up in
favour
law.
the course of a summary trial, it appears to the of regular trial.- m
of the case is such that it is undesirable to
shall recall any witnesses who may have been
try it Magistrate thatthe theWhneant,ure
summarily,
rehear the case in the manner provided by this Code.
[S.
examined and prMaoceedgjstraeto
the26oltrial2)]
If there is a change from summary to regular
trial,
inception must be conducted in the regular manner."G vfrom its
But if a case was tried as a summons. case- by one
it could have been tried summarily, there is no need Magi strate though
for the
Magistrate to restart the case from its inception. On the Successor
possible for him to start the case from the stage where thecontrary, it is
lefts2 predecessor
21.15 Record in summary trials
In every case tried summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form s
the State Government may direct, the following particulars, namely:
(at the serial number of the case;
(b) the date of the commission of the offence;
(c) the date of the report or complaint;
(d the name of the complainant (if any);
accused;
(e) the name,parentage and residence of the
() the offence complained of and the clause offence (if any) proved, and
coming under clause (i), (ii) or clause () or
in cases which the
of the property in respect of
Section 26o(1), the value
offence has been committed;
examination (if any);
(g) the plea of the accused and his
(b) the finding;
(i) the sentence or other final order; terminated. (S. 2631
(i) the date on which the proceedings

para. 22.5.
50. See, observations in 4ISt Report, p. I81,
Cri LJI244, I245 (Guj).
Patel, 1971
S1. State of Gujarat v. D.N. r987 Cri LJ r997 (Ker).
Nargeese,
S2. K. Jayachandran v. O.
 Rgarding
he
utyo f t h e
trial court to give
het
ig
nCCeSsary facts which

in cases
tried
me
the ntioned
constituted substanofcefence the o\af neernce arwe,t
in of
St (f
hy
summari ly
uaemeut
Case
cvery
MagStrate
tried
summarityriwhihthe
shall record the menrin
subsrtaenasonsce accusforthetheeedvidedoesnce notandplead gulty.
ln
a, brief statement of
ihe
mtaming
judgmentshould be such the of
The from its perusal, heas to a
andthe
cidence reasons for
the nature of COur fndi
t n g.
enable
of IS, A6Al
the case, theappeal or
a
jndgment
hepositionto examine the
fnding so
correctness
that revi-of
or coursutsbstamince
ina
or such
hindhing.
The
judgment referred to
above in pro priety ofght be
lin egality such
aord
thar has to be maintained
under Section 263 and
Section 264
the under Section 263. Theaddition to the
is
tained
andseparate,S:
judgment under record Section 264 are dimaistinnCt-
Languageofrrecord and
Ererysuch record
shall be judgment
written
in the
The High Court may
authorise language
otences summarily to prepare the
any
Magi str
of the
ate court. (S. 265lt 21.17
aforesaid recordempowerèd
hoth by means of an officer appointed in this
to
and judgment eyor
Magistrate, and the record or behalf by the Chief Judicial
such Magistrate. (S. 265(2)]
judgment prepared shall be signed by
so

C. PLEA BARGAINING

Chapter XXI-A consisting of Sections 265-A to 265-L was inserted into

the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) vide the Criminal Law (Amendment
A, 2005 with effect froms July 2006. Plea bargaining could be resorted
to only in the cases of offences other than the offences for which the pun
Shment of death or of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for aterm
xceding seven years are prescribed. Requests for plea barganng cat
court.
ated only at the stage of cognizance of the offence by theoffences
Ofenceswinvolving socio-economic conditions of the country or
excluded trom
years ot age aresocio-economic
against Women
the purview
and children below 14 involving
of plea bargaining.56 Theoffencesbe notifed by the Central
conditions for the time being in force
shall

Gove}.Courrnt ment.
`4, on its Own Motion v. Sh. Shankroo, I983 Cri LJ 304, 306(Ker). 63,64(HP).
198o CriLJ
Sankaran (Ker).
SS. lbrd, go s
i6. 5.
Unni Vasu devan Unni v. Rasheed,

265-A. See, Lokesb v. State, (20II) I84 DLT

68o.
 Chapter 21 Trial Procedures: Trial of Sunmmons Cases
and

The accuscd has to initiate steps for plea Summary Trial

cation for plea
ning
cation with its accompanments. In
265-B. (2) The appication under sub
tion of the case relating to which the
bar gain i
this respect
section shall
ng
(r)
by way
Section 26t-
to which the case relates andshall application Contan hrief
be
is fled a
the accused stating therein that he accompanied inhiding, the nfo
has by an
de
standing the nature and extent of
offence, the plca bargaining
voluntprovided
punishment
in his case and that he
arily preferred,
after mto,
under
convicted by a Court in a case in which he
had been has
not previnsy
offence.
charged with the tar
On receipt of application for plea
the parties concerned such as the bargaining, the court may
complainant, public require a
accused to appear in the court and it may
to ascertain whether he had
voluntarily given
prosecut
accused o r
examine the
in
the application camer.
and th.
gaining. The Code enacts that where: for plea bar.
(a) the court is satisfied that the application has been
accused voluntarily, it shall provide time to the Public fled by the
orthe complainant the case,as the case may be,and the aceuse
to work out a mutually
of
satistactory disposition of the case whick
Prosecutor
may include giving to the victim by the accused the
and other expenses during the case and thereafter fix the date for compensation
further hearing of thecase;
(b) the court finds that the application has been filed involuntarily br
the accused or he has previously been convicted by acourt in acase
in which he had been charged with the same offence, it shall pro
ceed further in accordance with the provisions of this Code rom
the stage such application has been filed under sub-section (.
The court on satisfying that the accused had voluntarily made the appli
cation, it will be processed as provided for in the section. The procedure
laid down in this chapter has been held to be mandatory." If it is not dote
in accordance with the procedure, revision will lie and the case may be
remitted to the trial court. 58 Jf it becomes known that the accused was In
triedin
fact coerced to make the application as indicated above, he may be The Code
chapter.
accordance with the usual procedure and not under this in Sections26j-
enacts guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition
and 265-D, which state as under:

order dated -3
of Maharashtra, WP No. 35 of 2011,
S7. See, Rajesh Narayan Jaiswal v. State ot
(Madl
2012 (Bom). 009
order dated 28-10-2 Uttarakhand
58. V. Subramaian v. State, Criminal R.C. No. IO9 of 2006,
(20IO) 69 ACC448ofplea
bargait-
Madras High Court. Also see, Vijay Moses Das v. CBI,
accused's request for
High Court wherein the court disapproved rejection of
ing by the trial court. The case was remitted to trial court.
 mutually
working Out a
os.

h-sNONn
n

(4) Section 265-B,

of he satiCourt
stactoryshalldisfollow
positionthe nder clve a ot
fotlowing proce itully otife
hrt,namclr:
instituted on a police
Public PProsecutor, the noice report,
the Conrt
shall ise notice tn
theaxcuscdand the victim of offcer who has
participateinvestinigthearedmeeting
tlhe
work outa satistactory dispositioncase
the to case:
of the tlhe cae
tharthroughout such
ro
Prded nrocess working out a
shall be the of
thecase. it
Ivoluntarily by the parties Court to ensure atisfactor
duty of the n
thar the ntire
turther that the accused may, if heparticipating inthe meeting:
Proded so desires,
Hthhis pleader, if any, engaged in the case;
mRetinE
participate in uch
h in a case instituted otherwise than on police report, the Court shall
NOtlceto the
t accused and thevictim of
the
mectingto work out a satisfactory disposition ofcase
IssUC thetocase:
participate in a
Thovdedthat it shall be the duty of the Court to ensure, throughout such
reworking out a satistactory disposition of the case, that it is com
neredvoluntarily
by the parties participating in the meeting:
Providedfurther that if the victim of the case or the accused, as the case
So desires, he may participate in such meeting with his pleader
mar be.
Engaged in the case.
zns-D. Where in a meeting
under Section 265-C, a satisfactory disposition of Report of the
been worked out, the Court shall prepare a report of such disposi- mutually satstactor
thecase has dispositon to be
of the Court and allother
n which shall be signed by the presiding ofhcer submitted betore she
participated in the meeting and if no such disposition has been
esons who observation and proceed further in Court
TOked out, the Court shall record such
Code from the stage the application
ordance with the provisions of thishas been filed in such case.
265-B
ider sub-section () of Section
the cases instituted on police report the vic
pertunent to note that in
participate in the process of work
to
cOunsel is not seen authorised in
provided
complaint cases,it is pleaders.
disposition. On the contrary, participate withtheir
tt complainants, ifso desire, could
be
interests of the victim could
the changed
It may be the intention thhat But it seems that in
the
a care of by the PublicProsecutor.
revised.
shouldbedispositions has alsoCrPC provided
beenor under
position
UmstanCes of plea-bargained
this
txECution benefhit under Section 360oranyothersuch
he court may give the Offenders Act, 198
inthelighe
case
sOns of the Probation of the while disposing of the
n
dealing with
tie dispositions.
the offenders
court may
mun the
give halt otthe
one-tourth
Sentencesthe award
Incaonses pleainvolving minimum
In other cases 1tCan awardingone has
while
tourth
court
bargai
It hasninbeen
g. that even process,the

seAsntehncement.t9o
opined
plea-bargaining
an accused under

3.Se, S. a6s-t.
 mary Trial
to look into the nmitigating factors to reducethe
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the quant
courts u
to award sentence other than that provided foor in have no
m of

Section 26s-
judgment passed by the court shallbe final, Al! appeal Sjuernstedncieta
petition under Articles 226 and 227 have been barred
It has been provided that the rule of set offi \except special leaye
under Section
be applicable to the sentence awarded under this 428 CrPC
statement given under thischapter for plea bargaining cannot chapter. acCuse
TheL
any other purpose.
An accused cannot have the benefht
he used or
opt for plea bargaining. ° This chapter isunder this chapter if he a
not applicable to the nro
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)
A 2000.
Act,
60. See, Ranbir Singh v. State, (2012) IRCR (Cri) 928 (Del).
61. See, Guerrero Lugo Elvia Grissel v. State of
Maharashtra, 2012 Cri LJ II36
62. Thomas v. State of Kerala, 2013 Cri LJ 825 (Ker). (Bom).