The trial of summons cases by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India is a legal process designed for less serious offenses. Summons cases are those in which the Magistrate issues a summons to the accused instead of an arrest warrant. of CrPC Sections 251 to 259.
1. Section 251 – Examination of Accused:
- This section outlines the initial stage of the trial. The Magistrate reads the charges to the accused and asks them whether they plead guilty or claim a trial. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate may convict and pass a sentence. If the accused pleads not guilty, the trial proceeds.
2. Section 252 – Examination of Prosecution Witnesses:
- After the accused claims a trial, the prosecution presents its witnesses and evidence. Witnesses are examined and cross-examined in accordance with the procedures outlined in this section.
3. Section 253 – Evidence for Defense:
- Section 253 deals with the defense’s opportunity to present evidence. After the prosecution’s case, the accused is given an opportunity to present their defense, call witnesses, and produce evidence in their favor.
4. Section 254 – Judgment:
- Section 254 addresses the delivery of the judgment in summons cases. After the trial, if the accused is found guilty, the Magistrate proceeds to pronounce the sentence, which may include imprisonment, fines, or other penalties.
5. Section 255 – Acquittal or Conviction:
- This section outlines the procedure for recording acquittal or conviction. If the accused is acquitted, the Magistrate records the reasons for acquittal. If the accused is convicted, the Magistrate proceeds with sentencing.
6. Section 256 – Non-compliance with Section 258:
- Section 256 provides guidance when a Magistrate does not follow the procedures outlined in Section 258, such as cases where the accused is unable to furnish bail. It allows the Magistrate to postpone the trial or release the accused on bail.
7. Section 257 – Discharge:
- This section permits the Magistrate to discharge the accused if, after considering the evidence and statements, no case is made out against the accused. It is the point at which the Magistrate decides whether there is a prima facie case against the accused.
8. Section 258 – Power to Stop Proceedings:
- Section 258 allows the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage if they believe that there are insufficient grounds for proceeding further. This is typically exercised when new information or circumstances arise.
Case laws
Certainly, here are some relevant case laws related to the trial of summons cases by Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India:
Dilip Dass v. State of West Bengal (2000):
In this case, the Calcutta High Court emphasized that when an accused pleads not guilty under Section 251, it becomes imperative for the Magistrate to conduct a full-fledged trial rather than summarily disposing of the case.
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957):
The Supreme Court held that in a summons case, the complainant’s evidence should be recorded and cross-examined as a matter of course. Failure to do so might result in a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Lal Chand v. State of Haryana (1978):
This case underscores that in summons cases, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that the defense witnesses are examined, cross-examined, and that all evidence is properly recorded, especially if the accused is unrepresented by counsel.
Raja Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1978):
This case clarifies that in a summons case, the Magistrate is required to deliver a reasoned judgment, ensuring that the accused’s right to a fair trial is upheld.
Nishant Abhang v. State of Maharashtra (2013):
- The Bombay High Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the power to discharge the accused in a summons case if no prima facie case is made out, and this should be based on an application of the mind to the evidence on record.
Rama Shankar Singh v. Jagdish Prasad (2000):
- In this case, the Patna High Court clarified that the Magistrate’s power under Section 258 is discretionary but should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically.
