Summary Trial Explained By Justice V Ramkumar [Q and A]

We have already seen that there are only two types of cases, namely, “summons cases” and “warrant cases”. Since as per the exclusionary definition under Section 2 (w) Cr.P.C., a “summons case” is one relating to an offence not being a “warrant case”, we have to find out as to what exactly is a “warrant case”. Section 2 (x) Cr.P.C. defines a “warrant case” to mean – “a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years.” Cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding 2 years and upto 7 years, are “warrant cases” triable by Magistrates. Cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding 7 years and shown as triable exclusively by the Court of Session are also “warrant cases” triable by Sessions Judges. Once we exclude “warrant cases”, what remains is “summons cases” which are, cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment upto 2 years. Still below are cases meant for “summary trial” which is a “condensed form” of “summons trial”. Here, the sentence for imprisonment which can be passed should not exceed 3 months. We will now discuss a few questions relating to “summary trial”.Q.1 What are the types of cases which can be tried in a summary way ? Ans. Section 260 (1) Cr.P.C. enumerates 9 categories of cases which can be tried summarily. They are –(i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years (i.e. offences punishable with imprisonment for 2 years and below); (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 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 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 two thousand rupees; (v) offences (of lurking house-trespass and house-breaking) 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 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).(x) “Petty offences” as defined under Section 206 (2) Cr.P.C. punishable only with fine not exceeding Rs.1,000/- can be disposed of summarily under Section 206 (1) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can issue a “special summons” under Section 206 (1) Cr.P.C. giving the accused the option –to appear in person or through counsel, or to plead guilty to the accusation without appearing before the Magistrate, by transmitting through post or by messenger the said plea of guilty in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons, or to authorise in writing his counsel to plead guilty on his behalf and pay the fine through such counsel. (Vide Section 253 Cr.P.C). The fine specified in the special summons shall not exceed Rs. 1,000/-. (Vide proviso to Section 206 (1) Cr.P.C). NOTS BY THE AUTHOR: In Ramesan v. State of Kerala 2010 (3) KLT 348 = 2010 (3) KHC 291 (V. Ramkumar – J), the accused was charge-sheeted by the police for offences punishable under Sections 279 IPC read with Sections 132 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Treating the above case as a “petty offence”, the accused was summoned to the Magistrate Court concerned by means of a summons issued by the Sub-Inspector. It was held that a case involving Section 279 IPC could not be treated as a “petty offence”. It was further held that it was not open to a police officer to summon an accused to appear before a Magistrate's Court and that the summons ought to have been issued by the Court itself.(xi) Section 206 (3) Cr.P.C. authorizes the State Government to specially empower by notification any Magistrate to exercise the powers under Sections 206 (1) Cr.P.C in relation to any offence compoundable or any offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three months or with fine or both, where the Magistrate is of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, imposition of fine alone would meet the ends of justice. (In the State of Kerala no such notification has been ...

Summary Trial Explained By Justice V Ramkumar [Q and A]

Justice V Ramkumar

Tags