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: A significant provision in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is Section 261 that gives the High Court the authority to grant any Magistrate with the powers of a Magistrate of the Second Class the authority to quickly try certain offenses. Infractions that can result in a fine or imprisonment for a period of not more than six months with or without a fine as well as any aiding or attempting to commit such an offense are covered by this provision.
Section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code aims to ensure that minor offenses are resolved quickly and effectively without requiring a lengthy and time-consuming trial. The Indian criminal justice system relies heavily on this provision to ensure that minor offenses are resolved quickly, thereby lessening the burden placed on the courts and minimizing delays in the administration of justice.
We will go over the details of Section 261 CrPC’s provisions and its practical implications in this article. We will also talk about how this provision affects the effective resolution of minor offenses and how it fits into the larger criminal justice system. Last but not least, we’ll look at the cases in which this section was interpreted further.
According to Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
“Section 261. Summary trial by Magistrate of the second class.
The High Court may confer on any Magistrate invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the second class power to try summarily any offence which is punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with or without fine, and any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence.”
As studied in the previous section, Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the summary trial of certain offenses by specific Magistrates is authorized by Section 260A of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The section gives the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, and Magistrates of the First Class, who have been given special authority by the High Court, the authority to try certain offenses in a summary manner if they think it’s appropriate. Infractions that are not punishable by death, life in prison, or a sentence of more than two years in prison, as well as some related to theft, receiving or retaining stolen property, assisting in an offense, insulting someone with the intention of causing a disturbance in the peace, and making an attempt to commit any of these offenses, are all eligible for a summary trial. Notwithstanding, assuming the Judge feels that the idea of the case is with the end goal that it is bothersome to attempt it immediately, they can review any observers and continue to re-hear the case in the normal way given by the CrPC.
Looking at Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, it empowers the High Court to grant the power of summary trial to any Magistrate invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the second class. The section provides for the summary trial of certain offenses, which are relatively minor in nature, and which are punishable only with a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with or without a fine. The provision also includes any abetment of or attempt to commit such an offense.
Compared to a regular trial, a summary trial is quicker and more informal. The administration of justice in a timely and effective manner is the goal of a summary trial. The denounced has the privilege to be heard and to introduce a protection, yet the procedures are less formal than those of a customary preliminary. Any Magistrate with the authority of a Magistrate of the Second Class may be granted summary trial by the High Court. This includes any Magistrate who is given the authority to act as a second-class Magistrate or who is given such authority by the High Court. The Magistrate cannot independently exercise the High Court’s authority to conduct a summary trial for an offense.
The offenses that can be attempted immediately under this arrangement are those that are somewhat minor in nature, and which are culpable just with a fine or detainment for a term not surpassing a half year regardless of a fine. Traffic violations, minor property violations, and other similar offenses are examples of such violations. The arrangement likewise incorporates any abetment of or endeavor to commit such an offense. At the point when a Justice is contributed with the force of synopsis preliminary by the High Court, they have the position to attempt the offenses recorded under this part in a rundown way. The proceedings of a summary trial are less formal than those of a regular trial. The accused has the right to be heard and to present a defense, and the Magistrate has the authority to take evidence and question witnesses.
A fine or imprisonment for up to six months, with or without a fine, can be imposed on the accused if the Magistrate finds them guilty of the offense. Notwithstanding, it is critical to take note of that even in instances of outline preliminary, the accused has the privilege to bid against the decision of the Judge in a higher court.
It was observed in the case of M.Mohammed Faisal vs V.Christy that as per Section 261 CrPC, In cases tried summarily under section 260 of CrPC, the Magistrate is authorized to impose a sentence for a maximum period of six months only. If the Magistrate decides to convert a summon case into a warrant case, the Magistrate must follow the procedure outlined in Section 259 of CrPC.
Another case where Section 261 was interpreted further was the case of Smt. Ram Rati vs Unknown. In the case at hand, the accused’s statement was recorded under section 313 of CrPC, which gave him the opportunity to respond to any incriminating evidence against him. However, in a summary trial, such provision for the statement of the accused is not provided under sections 261 to 265 of CrPC. As a result, it was determined that the trial was not conducted as a summary trial as outlined in sections 261 to 265 of CrPC but rather as a summons trial. This is similar to the case of Seema Kathuria vs Unknown. Additionally, the testimonies of witnesses, including the accused, were recorded in detail.
In Kalidas, Director, Kaveri Engineering Industries Limited Trichy vs Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India, the argument put forth was that under Section 261 of the CrPC, a Magistrate can only impose a maximum sentence of six months, and if they want to convert a summon case into a warrant case, they must follow the procedures set out in Section 259 of the CrPC. However, in this case, the trial court did not comply with these procedures, which according to Section 461 (i), (n), and (m) of the CrPC, renders the entire trial proceedings null and void. Section 143 of the NI Act lays down the procedures for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act to be tried as a summons case or summary trial. Although the Magistrate has the power to treat a summons case as a warrant case, they must provide reasons for doing so. The mere fact that the case was taken on file in C.C. No. 311 of 2012 does not imply that it was tried as a warrant case.
In conclusion, the High Court is given authority under Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 to allow a Magistrate with the powers of a Magistrate of the Second Class to quickly try certain offenses that are only punishable by a fine or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, with or without a fine, as well as any attempt or aiding of such offenses. The goal of summary trials is to ensure that minor offenses are resolved effectively and promptly, relieving the courts of their workload and minimizing delays in the administration of justice. The accused has the privilege to be heard and present a safeguard in rundown preliminaries, yet the procedures are less formal than those of a customary preliminary. If found guilty, the accused can be punished with or without a fine for up to six months, but they can appeal the decision to a higher court. The Magistrate cannot independently conduct summary trials due to their limitations. By ensuring that minor offenses are dealt with effectively and promptly, the provision has an impact on the overall criminal justice system.
CASE LAWS AND REFERENCES
M.Mohammed Faisal vs V.Christy on 1 February, 2014
Smt. Ram Rati vs Unknown on 18 September, 2012
Seema Kathuria vs Unknown on 11 September, 2012.
Kalidas, Director, Kaveri Engineering Industries Limited Trichy vs Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India on August 14, 2009
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%20261%20crpc
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section+261+crpc
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_000010_197402_1517807320555&orderno=290
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Bare Act