This article has been written by Ms. Nehal Sharma, a student studying BBA LLB (Hons.) from MIT WPU Pune. The author is a 2nd year law student.
Introduction: The adversarial legal system involves parties being represented by their advocates before an impartial person who seeks to determine the truth and make a judgement based on the case presented. A trial is a fair process where both sides can present their arguments and cross-examine witnesses, and the judge decides the outcome based on the merits of the case. To ensure fairness, trials must be free from undue influence.
There are three types of trials, namely warrant, summons, and summary. This article will focus on Summary Trials. Summary trials are covered under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, and are used for speedy disposal of cases that fall under the small or petty category. Complex cases are reserved for warrant or summons trials. The facts presented in the complaint determine if a case should be tried summarily. The main aim of summary trials is to expedite case disposal and reduce the burden on the judiciary while providing a fair opportunity for people to obtain justice in a shorter time. Regulations for summary trials are covered under sections 260 to 265. We will discuss Section 260 that is basically an introduction to summary trials in this article.
The power to try a case summarily is laid down in article 260 of Cr.P.C, 1973. According to Section 260 of Cr.P.C, 1973,
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code–
(a) any Chief Judicial Magistrate;
(b) any Metropolitan Magistrate;
(c) any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court,
may, if he thinks fit, try in a summary way all or any of the following offences:–
(i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
(ii) theft, under section 379, section 380 or section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed 1[two thousand rupees];
(iii) receiving or retaining stolen property, under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property does not exceed 1[two thousand rupees];
(iv) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of such property does not exceed 1[two thousand rupees];
(v) offences under sections 454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(vi) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under section 504, and 2[criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both], under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(vii) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;
(viii) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;
(ix) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).
(2) When, in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try it summarily, the Magistrate shall recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code.”
Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure for conducting summary trials. It states that in a summary trial, the court must ensure that the accused person is informed of the offence and given an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty. The court may then proceed to hear the case summarily and deliver the judgment without the examination of witnesses or a full trial.
What individuals have the authority to conduct summary trials? Section 260(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a case can be tried summarily by any of the following magistrates, if they deem it appropriate:
- a) Chief Judicial Magistrate;
- b) Metropolitan Magistrate;
- c) Judicial Magistrate First Class, who has been specially authorized by the High Court.
Can a Magistrate of Second Class try any offence summarily? If a Magistrate of Second class has been empowered by the High Court to try an offence that is punishable with fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, then they can try the case summarily. However, if a Magistrate is not authorized by law to try an offender summarily, their proceedings will be deemed null and void. The details of which offences can be tried summarily are further given in the section.
Further understanding of section 260 was laid out in the case of State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah And Ors. The case clarified that the magistrate has the discretion to decide whether to try a case summarily or not, and this discretion should be exercised judiciously and with care, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.The term “if he thinks fit” occurring in aforesaid Section 260 contemplates that a case should not be tried summarily only because it is summarily triable. The allegations in the complaint are not conclusive in determining whether a case should be tried summarily, and the evidence of the complainant must also be taken into account. Moreover, even during a summary trial, if the magistrate feels that it is not appropriate to try the case summarily, going by subsection (2) of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they can recall witnesses and treat the case as a warrant case. Therefore, it is important for the magistrate to carefully evaluate the circumstances of each case before deciding whether to proceed with a summary trial.
In M/S. Mahathru Technologies vs M/S Creative Infotech, it was held that according to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 260 of Cr.P.C., this provision supersedes other provisions of Cr.P.C. In cases where the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, or Magistrate of the First Class empowered by the High Court can conduct a summary trial following the procedure outlined in Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. If such a case is being tried by one of these magistrates, the court may order that the case be tried summarily instead of following the summons trial procedure. Typically, a case involving offences not punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years is a summons case, as defined in clause (w) of Section 2 read with clause (x) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C.
In Hanumantharayappa V.S vs Singamma, the trial court considered the case as summons trial referring Section 260 (2) of Cr.P.C, since it was impossible for trial Court to dispose of the matter within 6 months as provided under section 260 of Cr.P.C. and hence the summons trial was conducted as per section 262 of Cr.P.C. with due procedure and thereafter hear the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and accused, formulating the points for consideration and passed the conviction judgment and order of sentence after considering the materials on record.
These cases emphasize the importance of following the procedure laid down in Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and ensuring that the accused is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves in summary trials.
In conclusion, it is observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides a faster and simpler process for disposing of small or minor offenses through summary trials. Section 260 outlines the necessary procedures, which include informing the accused of the charges, providing them with a chance to plead guilty or not guilty, and delivering the verdict promptly. Several court cases related to Section 260 stress the importance of ensuring that the defendant is given a fair chance to defend themselves and that the court follows the procedures accurately. The court must ensure that the defendant understands the charges, their rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty or not guilty. The court should also allow the defendant to cross-examine witnesses and provide their own defense. Finally, the reasons for convicting the defendant must be documented. Overall, summary trials play a vital role in the Indian criminal justice system, and strict adherence to the regulations and procedures outlined in Section 260 is essential to ensure a fair trial and justice for the defendant.
CASE LAWS AND REFERENCES
State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah And Ors. on 21 November, 1994
M/S. Mahathru Technologies, vs M/S Creative Infotech on 19 November, 2020
Hanumantharayappa V.S vs Singamma on 10 April, 2015
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%20260%20crpc
https://blog.ipleaders.in/summary-trial-code-criminal-procedure-1973/
https://dtlegal.in/summary-trial/
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Bare Act