Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Procedure Notes 2
Criminal Procedure Notes 2
Criminal Procedure Notes 2
ANSWER:- Cr P C gives powers to the police for arresting a person with such
power Cr P.C also provides rights to an arrested person. Rights of an arrested are
as follows –
In case of Udaybhan Shuki vs State of UP 1999 CrLJ, All HC held that right to be
notified of grounds of arrest is a precious right of the arrested person. This allows
him to move the proper court for bail, make a writ petition for habeas corpus, or
make appropriate arrangements for his defence.
Further, in case of, Sharifbai vs Abdul Razak, AIR 1961, SC held that if a police
officer fails to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours,
he shall be held guilty of wrongful detention.
5. Right to free legal aid – Section 304 – Section 304 provides that where, in
a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader,
and where appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to
engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense
of the State. In Suk Das vs Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh 1986, SCC, SC
has held that non-compliance of this requirement or failure to inform the accused
of this right would spoil the trial entailing setting aside of the conviction and
sentence. The right of an accused to consult his lawyer begins from the moment
of his arrest. The consultation with the lawyer may be within the presence of a
police officer, but not within the police officer’s hearing. SC also held that it is the
duty on all courts and magistrates to inform the indegent person about his right
to get free legal aid.
In case of Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra 1983 SCC, SC held that the
arrested accused person must be informed by the magistrate about his right to
be medically examined in terms of Section 54(1).
Answer:- There are two different procedures prescribed for trial of warrant cases
by a Magistrate:
Before proceeding with the case, the Magistrate has to ascertain as to whether
the copies of documents require to be supplied to the accused according to
Section 207 have been complied with. If they have not been so complied, the
Magistrate should get them supplied and then proceed with the case.
If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination of the accused as the Magistrate thinks
necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
Under Section 239, Magistrate has the power to discharge the accused if upon
the consideration of the documents sent to him under Section 173 and the
examination of the accused, if any, he thinks necessary and after giving an
opportunity to the prosecution and the accused being heard, he considers that
the charge against the accused is groundless. If on the consideration of the
documents and after the examination of the accused and after hearing the
prosecution and the defence, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is a ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this
chapter with such Magistrate is competent to try and which he can adequately
punish, he shall frame in writing a charge.
The examination of the accused under sections 239 and 240 is meant only to get
explanation from the accused of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
documents sent up under Section 173. It is discretionary with the Magistrate to
examine the accused. It is not obligatory to examine an accused.
The Magistrate has to record reasons for discharging the accused. Failure to
record the reasons makes the order illegal. The recording of reasons for discharge
is essential so that the Higher Courts may be able to know as to be of opinion
that the charge should not be framed and the accused should be discharged.
If, upon such consideration examination and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion
that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence
triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which,
in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.
Then, the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
A Magistrate shall frame a charge if there is a ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, the offence is triable under this chapter, the
Magistrate is competent to try it and the accused can be adequately punished by
him.
A Magistrate can frame a charge in a case where is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, that is to say,
The offence must be punishable to imprisonment for a period exceeding two
years. If the offence which appears to be triable as a summon case, no charge
should be framed, though the accused may be tried without framing any charge
as a summons case, similarly if the case is triable as a Sessions trial, no charge
can be framed by the Magistrate.
A Magistrate can frame a charge under Section 240 only when he is competent
to try the case. A Magistrate may not be competent to try the case if the offence
has been committed beyond the local jurisdiction of his Court.
The charge framed shall be read over and explained to the accused and he should
be asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Charge shall be read over the accused
and not the pleader. It has been held that the charge may be explained to the
counsel of the accused and he may be allowed to plead or not to plead on behalf
of the accused. But this view is not correct. The charge has to be explained to the
accused and the accused has to plead guilty or not.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, on his
discretion, convict him thereon.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate should record his plea in his own
words and clearly.
The Magistrate has discretion to convict an accused on his plea of guilty. But the
plea of guilty must be clear. It is admission of all the facts on which the charge is
founded and also the admission of guilt in respect of them. When the accused
pleaded not guilty at the time of charge being read over to him and the Magistrate
proceeded to take evidence but afterwards the accused accepted the guilt, it was
held that he could not be convicted under Section 241.
The plea of the accused must be recorded as much as possible in the very words
of the accused so that the higher courts may determine whether the plea of the
accused really amounted to a confession of the guilt.
If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the
Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 241 the Magistrate shall
fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the
statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.
On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as
may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to
be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall
any witness for further cross-examination
When the accused does not plead guilty or claims to be tried or even on plea of
guilty the Magistrate does not convict him, he shall fix a date for the examination
of witnesses. It is for the benefit of the accused that this provision for fixing a
date has been provided. If the Magistrate after the statement of accused not
pleading guilty, straight way proceeds with the case, the accused may be
prejudiced and such proceeding certainly makes the trial illegal.
On the date so fixed, the Magistrate is bound to take all the evidence by the
prosecution. The provision of Section 242(3) is mandatory. There can be no doubt
that the Magistrate is bound to take all such evidence as may be produced in
support of the prosecution. A Magistrate is not competent to acquit the accused
without taking all the evidence which is offered by the prosecution. If he does
acquit without taking all the evidence, the order is illegal.
Under section 242(3) which is in very wide term, the Magistrate is bound to take
all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. There is
ample authority in support of the view that if in the course of the trial, the
prosecution thinks it necessary to file additional documents or statements of
witnesses on which they proposes to rely, the non-supply of copies does not
prevent them from filing the documents or examining the witnesses.
It is not the bounden duty of the court to compel the attendance of the witnesses
suo moto and examine them under Section 311, even if the prosecution does not
care to produce them. The court may help the prosecution in securing the
attendance of the witnesses. The prosecution has to give the list of the witnesses
and pray for issue of summons and the summons being infructuous, the
prosecution has to approach the Court for warrant etc. If the prosecution fails to
take steps and does not produce evidence, the court may close the prosecution
evidence and proceed further and may acquit the accused.
The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his
evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall
file it with the record.
If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate
to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose
of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other
thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such
application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be
recorded by him in writing:
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of
cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of
such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is
satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under Sub-
Section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in
attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.
If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244 the Magistrate
considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been
made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall
discharge him.
If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is
competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him,
he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his
discretion, convict him thereon.
If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the
accused is not convicted under Sub-Section (3) he shall be required to stale, at
the commencement of the next hearing of the case or, if the Magistrate for
reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith whether he wishes to
cross-examine any, and if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose
evidence has been taken.
If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and,
after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged.
The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken
and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be
discharged.
The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his
evidence; and the provisions of section 243 shall apply to the case.
C.-Conclusion of trial
If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the
Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty,
hut does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section
360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass
sentence upon him according to law.
Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under
the provisions of Sub-Section (7) of section 211 and the accused does not admit
that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate
may, after he has convicted the said accused, take evidence in respect of the
alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Magistrate nor shall the
accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred
to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the
accused has been convicted under Sub-Section (2).
When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed
for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be
lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his
discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before
the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.
If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police
officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a
Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom
the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion
that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or
any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the
person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present,
call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to
such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one
or, if such person is not present direct the issue of a summons to him to appear
and show cause as aforesaid.
The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or
informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground
for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that
compensation to such amount not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered
to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to
the accused or to each or any of them.
The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under
Sub-Section (2) further order that, in default of payment, the person ordered to
pay such compensation shall under go simple imprisonment for a period not
exceeding thirty days.
When any person is imprisoned under Sub-Section (3), the provisions of sections
68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall, so far as may be, apply.
No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall,
by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect
of the complaint made or information given by him:
Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be
taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent
civil suit relating to the same matter.
The pardon can be granted when the offences are triable by the Court of Session
or by a court of special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act 1952 and the offences punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7
years or with a more severe sentence nor exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
The provision of this section cannot be enlarged. Pardon can only be tendered
with respect to the categories of offences mentioned in the section and to none
others. The jurisdiction to tender pardon is strictly limited to the offences
mentioned in the section.
The only conditions required for granting pardon are that the accused should
make a thorough and complete disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge
throwing light upon the offence or the offences about which he promises to give
evidence. The Magistrate granting pardon has power to add any condition. The
Magistrate may make a condition that if the approver fails to make a full
disclosure of the facts, he may be prosecuted.
It is discretionary with the Magistrate to grant pardon. But he should exercise the
power in exceptional circumstances. If no approver is examined as a witness the
other accused will go free, pardon may be granted. When there are a number of
witnesses, of fact, the pardon should not be granted to an accused. In any case
no pardon should be granted to the main offender.
It often happens that the police does not charge sheet one of the accused and
examines him as a witness. The evidence of such a witness is not irrelevant, but
such course should be deprecated.
The Magistrate granting pardon shall explain all the conditions to the accused. He
has to make it clear to the accused that if he does not fulfill the conditions and if
he conceals any material fact or if he tells anything false, he may be tried. The
Magistrate shall record his reasons and should also mention as to whether the
pardon was accepted. The Magistrate has also to supply a copy of this procedure
to the accused if asked for. If the manner of pardon is substantially complied
with, though it is not very regularly recorded, the procedure is legal.
Before an accused can be examined against a co-accused not only that a pardon
should be tendered to him, but it is necessary that he should accept it. If the
pardon is not accepted by a person, his position remains that of an accused. The
acceptance of pardon need not be in writing. It may be evidenced by the conduct.
A person can be said to have accepted a pardon only when he sticks to the
conditions imposed.
The Magistrate tendering pardon has to record the reason for granting pardon.
The reasons that the accused is granted pardon so that evidence may be available
against the other accused is a good reason. The giving of the reason is not a
condition precedent for granting a pardon. It is only a matter of procedure and
the failure to record reason is only an irregularity which does not affect the
pardon. It has been held that recording of reason is mandatory provision. If the
reasons are not recorded the order of Magistrate can be quashed.
The expression ‘any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly
concerned in or privy to an offence’ does not necessarily mean a person against
whom a charge sheet has been submitted nor is it necessary that he should know
exactly what crime has been committed. The ground of granting a pardon is not
the extent of complicity of a person in the offence. The fact that the person
concerned does not implicate himself to the same extent as he does others is no
bar in granting a pardon.
The pardon granted is not limited to the offences for which the trial is being held,
rather it extends to all the offences which were so connected with the offence for
which the pardon was tendered. The approver on acceptance of the pardon is
required to make a complete disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge
bearing upon the offence or offences as to which he gave evidence. Pardon
protects the offender from being prosecuted for the offence for which pardon is
granted.
If the person to whom pardon is tendered has not been released on bail prior to
granting him pardon, he shall be detained in custody until the termination of the
trial. The provision to keep him in custody is mandatory and neither the
Magistrate nor the Judge nor even the High Court can grant him bail.
Custody, under this section, means a judicial custody. A person who is granted
pardon has not to be sent to police custody. He has to be kept in judicial lock-up.
Even if the pardon has been refused at one stage, a further request can be
entertained and considered only if fresh or additional facts are placed by the
parties concerned.
Under the old Code, it was held by the Delhi High Court that the order tendering
the pardon was an administrative order and so it was not revisable. This case was
over ruled and the order was revisable. Under the present law, The order
tendering the pardon and order declining to tender pardon are interlocutory
orders and so no revision lies.
There are two ways open to the prosecution to examine a co-accused against the
others without granting him pardon. The public prosecutor may withdraw from
the prosecution against that accused under Section 321, get him discharged and
then examine him. The second course open to the prosecution is to separate the
case of that particular accused from that of the other accused and then examine
him in the case against the other accused. The police carrying investigation may
make an accused a witness by giving him assurance that he would not be
prosecuted. A person liable to be summoned under Section 319 is a competent
witness if not summoned as an accused under that Section 55.
The release of the approver on bail by the High Court does neither affect pardon
granted to him nor the trial.
At any time after commitment of a case, but before judgment is passed, the Court
to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the
evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in,
or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such
person.
The provision of this section pre-supposes that the pardon which had been
tendered was accepted and thereafter the approver has willfully concealed
anything essential or has given false evidence. There must be acceptance of the
pardon and the person must be examined. If the pardon has not been accepted,
the trial of the approver without certificate is illegal and it is also illegal to try him
with other accused.
The approver may be tried for the offence in respect of which pardon has been
tendered, or the other offence which might have been committed in connection
with the same matter and for giving false evidence.
The trial of a person who has not complied with the condition of the provision
must not be held jointly with other accused of the case, but if the pardon has not
been accepted by him, he may be jointly tried.
The trial for perjury cannot be started without the sanction of the High Court. The
High Court is not bound to accord the sanction in each and every case. The High
Court before granting sanction should consider all the circumstances in the case
and decide the main question whether the previous statement or the confession
was true and voluntary. If it is of opinion that the previous statement and
confession was true, the sanction may be accorded. If the statement at the time
of pardon is not true, the inference may be that the statement was obtained by
force and sanction is not to be granted.
For the trial of an approver only the sanction of the High Court is needed. Neither
an enquiry under Section 340 nor a complaint by the Court under Section 195 is
needed. The approver shall be tried on the charge-sheet submitted by the police.
At the trial of the approver, the statement at the time of accepting the pardon,
the statement made by the approver under section 164 after accepting the pardon
and the statement at the committal proceeding and at the trial shall be relevant
against the accused at his trial for perjury. The statement to be admissible under
this section should be made after the acceptance of the pardon.
The accused has a right to plead at the trial that he fulfilled the conditions of the
pardon and if he so pleads, the burden to prove that he did not comply with the
pardon either by willful concealment of essential fact or giving false evidence, lies
on the prosecution.
The Court has power to record the plea of the approver and for the sake of justice,
it has to record it in full.
The court after recording the plea of the approver will proceed with the trial, but
before passing any judgment, it has to decide whether or not the approver has
complied with the conditions of the pardon.
If the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove that
the approver did not comply with the conditions of the pardon, it has to pass a
judgment of acquittal. Only when the finding is against the approver, he may
convict the accused.
iii) It is on the basis of this information that investigation into the offence
commences.
v) The FIR could be in any type i.e. written or oral. It can also be given
on telephone. Sunil v/s State of MP, 1997.
It is essential that a detailed explanation of the happening should be given in FIR.
In a case of Navratan Mahanto v/s State of Bihar-1980, the court observed that
the prosecution cannot be dismissed merely on the basis that FIR does not
contains the complete explanation of happening as only gist of the happening in
factual position needs to be mentioned.
If any information is given orally, it should be recorded and then to read and
obtained the signature of the person giving information.
In a case of State of A.P v/s P. Ramulu, 1993, the court observed that FIR cannot
be refused to be recorded on the ground that the offence was committed not
within the jurisdiction.
There should be no delay in registering FIR (Gnash Bhawan Pated v/s State of
Maharashtra, 1979.).
Case State of A.P. v/s V.V. Panduranga Rao-2009: It was held that statement
given on telephone is to be treated as FIR because cryptic telephonic message of
cognizable offence received by Police would not constitute FIR. The mere fact that
the telephonic message was first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with
character of FIR.
5. Where FIR is lodged and what Object:- Generally the information about the
offence committed is given to the Police Station of the place concern, but it does
not mean that it cannot be lodged elsewhere. In a case of Punati Raube v/s
State of A.P.-1993: The police constable refused to record the compalaint on the
ground that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of
crime. Any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable
from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same
to concern police station.
6. The object of FIR: the main object of the FIR is to complain of any of the
offence to a Police officer so that criminal law could be applied. Where the FIR
was found o have been written after the inquest report was prepared the court
held that it has lost its authenticity in the case of Balaka Singh v/s State of
Punjab-1975.
prosecution case must be depend upon a variety of actors, Case Ram Jog v/s
State of UP-1974.
10. Delay in lodging FIR in rape cases:- In State Of Himachal Pradesh v/s
Shreekant Shekari-2004: That mere delay in lodging FIR does not anyway render
prosecution version brittle.
7. Place of trial for offences triable together:- Sec.184 says, where the offence
committed by any person are such that he may be charged with and tried at one
trial for each such offence by virtue of the provisions of seec.219 or sec.220 or
sec.221. The offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they
may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provision of
sec.223.Case: Pursottam Dalmiya v/s State of W.B.-1961.
INTRODUCTION:- The object of the rule embodied in the sec. 218 of Cr. P. C., is
to ensure a fair trial and to see that the accused is not bewildered or perplex to
confuse by having been asked to defend several unconnected charges or distinct
offences lumped together in one charge or in separate charges. We will read the
rules relating to joinder of charges described in different part of this section. There
is no exception to the rule that there should be separate charge for each
offence. The detail study of this section is as under:-
DEFINITION: – For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there
shall be a separate charge and every charge shall be tried separately. Where the
accused person by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of
opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, Magistrate may
try together all or any number of the charges famed against such person.
3. Three offences of the same kind within year may be charged together:- under
section 219 of Cr. P. C. when a person is accused of more offences than one of
the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the
last of such offences, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number
of them not exceeding three. Provisions of section are only enabling provisions,
it applies where offences are of the same kind but it does not apply where offences
are not of the same kind such as criminal breach of trust and falsification of
accounts. Rahmat v/s State of U. P.-1980.
4. Trial for than one offence:- If in one series of Acts so connected together as
to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same
person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence as
provided under section,220 of the Cr. P.C. Case Krishna Murthy v/s Abdu Subhan-
1965. Case of Kanshiram v/s Jhunjhunwala-1935, with the same it was necessary
to ascertain whether they are so connected together as to constitute a whole
which can properly be described as a transaction.
7. What persons may be charged jointly:- Under sec.223 joint trail of several
persons is permissible and applies only to trials and not to inquires. A joint trial
of several persons under this section is not vitiated merely by the facts that at
the end of the trial the facts found happen to be different from those on the basis
of which the charges were originally framed as held in case of Trilokchand v/s
Rex-1949. It was also held in case of A.R.Autulay v/s R.S.Nayak-1988.
8. Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges: –
When a charge containing more heads than one is framed against the same
person and when a conviction has been had on one or more of them, the
complainant or the Officer conducting the prosecution may with the consent of
the Court withdraw the remaining charge or charges. The court of its own accord
may stay the inquiry into or trial of such charges. Court may proceed with the
inquiry into or trial of the charge or charges so withdrawn.
4. Framing of charge: – While framing charges court shall only see that
there is a prima facie case against accused or not. At this juncture there is no
need for praising witnesses as held in case of State of M.P. v/s S.B. Johri-
2000. Where the judge frames any charge, the charge shall be read and
explained to the accused and accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of
the offence charged or claims to be tried as provided in section 228 of Cr. P.C.
7. Evidence for Prosecution:- On the date fixed, the judge shall proceed
to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution
sec.231. when any witness appears before the court there shall be no delay as
possible in his examination but if any delay happens in the examination of any
witness the merely on this ground the prosecution matter cannot be suspended
case of Bunty urf Guddu v/s State of M.P-2004.
11. Judgment:-After hearing both the parties the judge shall give a
judgment in the case under sec.235.Case:Alluddin Mian Sharif Mian v/s State of
Bihar-1989.
2. If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the same
may be described by that name, like theft, robbery, dacoity or murder etc.
3. If law does not give any specific name so much of the definition of the offence
must be stated for giving the notice to accused.
4. The Law and section of the law against which the offence is committed shall
be mentioned in the charge.
5. The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal
condition required by law to constitute the offence is fulfilled.
6. The charge shall be written in the language of the court. Case of Krishan v/s
State of Kerla-1958.The court said that charge should be in Court’s language.
7. The previous conviction if any of the accused must be stated in the charge
i.e. place, date and the fact of the offence.
4. The manner of committing offence must be stated in the charge u/s 213.
Court May alter the charge: Under sec.216, any court may alter or add to any
charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
Recall of Witnesses when charge altered:- under section 217, whenever the
charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial
the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed to recall or re-summoned and
examine the alteration and addition any witness who may have been examined.
Separate charges for distinct offence: – The object of sec.218 is to ensure a fair
trial and to see that the accused is not bewildered by having been asked to defend
several unconnected charges or distinct offences lumped together in one charge,
case of Aftab Ahmad Khan v/s State of Hydrabad-1954.
Same offences of same kind within one year may be charged together: – sec. 219
provides that offences punishable under sec.379 and 380 IPC shall be deemed to
be offences of the same kind. Criminal breach of trust and falsification of
accounts, when the offence is committed by a single accused and is not applicable
where several persons are tried jointly.
Trial for than one offence:- Sec.220 provides If in one series of acts so connected
together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed
by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such
offence. Case State of Biahar v/s Simranjit Singh-1987.
All or any of such offences charged in the alternative with having committed some
one of the said offences. Goverdhan v/s Kanilal-1953.
INTROUDCTION: – After hearing both the parties the Judge give a judgment in
the case. The judgement in every trial in any criminal court of its own jurisdiction
shall be pronounced in the open court by the presiding officer immediately after
the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be
given to the parties or their pleaders.
4. Order for notifying address of previously convicted offender: – Sec. 356 of the
code provides that, when any having been convicted by a court in India of an
offence punishable. If such conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise such
order shall become void. State Govt., can make rules to carry out the provisions
relating to the notification of residence.
8. Order to pay costs in non-cognizable cases: – Sec.359 says that whenever any
complaint of a non-cognizable offence is made to a court, the court if it convicts
the accused can order to pay the penalty along-with cost incurred by the
complainant and in case of default of payment the accused can sentence simple
imprisonment for a period not exceeding 30 days.
10. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases: – Where in any case the court
could have dealt with an accused person under the provisions of offenders Act a
youthful offender may tried by any other law for the time being in force for the
treatment training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders as held in case of Nanna
v/s State of Rajasthan-1989, under sec. 361.
11. Court not to alter Judgment:- According to section 362 of the code that any
other law for the time being in force no court when it has signed its judgment or
final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a
clerical or arithmetical error, case of Naresh & others v/s State of U.P.-1981.
12. Copy of the judgment to be given to the accused and other persons: – Section
363 says that a copy of the judgment shall immediately after the pronouncement
of the judgment be given to him free of cost, as held in case of Ladli Parsad Zutsi-
1932.
14. Court of Session to send copy of finding and sentence to District Magistrate:
– In the case tried by the court of session or a CJM the court or such magistrate
as the case may be shall forward a copy of its or his finding and sentence if any
to the District Magistrate as said in sec. 365 of the code.
2. Appeals from Convictions: – According to section 374 of code that any person
convicted on a trial by a H/C in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may
appeal to Supreme Court similar any person convicted by session judge or on a
trial held by any other court which sentence or imprisonment is more than 7 years
may appeal to High court. Case Panchi v/s State of U.P.-1998, In C.Gopinathan
v/s State of Kerala-1991
3. Appeal by State against sentence: – Under sec.377, the state Government may
in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than a H/C direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy to Court of Session if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate or to
the H/C if the sentence is passed by any other Court. When an appeal is filed
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy court shall not enhance the
sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of sowing
cause against such enhancement. Case of Nadir Khan v/s State-1976.
During the hearing of appeal from the order of acquittal it should be taken into
consideration that there is no miscarriage of justice, case Allahrakha K. Mansuri
v/s State of Gujrat-2002. The order of acquittal cannot be dismissed merely on
the ground that a second approach could have been applied in the case and it
means that the accused could have been convicted on considering another view
a case of Chandra Singh v/s State of Gujrat-2002.
7. Appeal to court of session how heard:- Appeal to the court of session shall
be heard by the sessions judges or by ASJ u/s 381.
4. If the appellant is in jail he present his petition of appeal through Officer I/c
jail.
5. Pending an appeal by accused person the appellate court shall suspend the
execution of order of sentence & if he is in confinement he be released on bail.
REVISION
4. During the hearing of Revision argue of the person applying for revision
should be considered seriously even though it they are too brief. Case Pal George
v/s state-02.
13. What is bail? State the provisions of Bail under Cr.P.C. Can
a person get order to be released on Bail without judicial or Police
custody? Refer case law.
What is bail?-When any person who is accused of any offence other than non-
bailable offence, he shall be released on bail under sec.436 of the code provided
he has been arrested or detained without warrant by an Officer I/C of Police
station or he appears or is brought before a court and he must be prepared any
time whine in the custody or at any stage of the proceeding before a court.
However the following are the provisions of getting Bail under Cr.P.C. Offences
can be classified into two classes on the basis of bail:-
ii) ii) Non-Bailable offences: – These offences are of severe nature and
bail cannot be claimed as right in them. In such cases bail depends upon the
discretion of the court. Sec. 437 relates to Non-bailable offences.
1. Grant of Bail in Non-bailable offences: – Sec. 437 provides that when any
person accused of or suspected of commission of any non bailable offence is
arrested or detained without warrant by an Officer I/C of a Police station or
appears or is brought before a court other than the High Court or court of Session
he may be released on bail. Thus section 437 empowered a Magistrate to take
bail in non bailable offences. The provision of this makes it clear that bail in non
bailable offences depends upon the discretion of the court.
i) When bail shall be granted: – sec.437 (1) lays down two situation in
which bail shall not be granted by magistrate:1) reasonable grounds for believing
that he has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
2. When offence is cognizable and he had been convicted with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 7 years or more or he has been
convicted on two or more occasion.
ii) There are exceptions to receive bail:- this section also provided with
few exceptions where magistrate can receive bail in following cases:-
b) If she is a woman.
c) Sick or infirm
Thus in the above cases the bail application can be accepted even though the
accused in guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or has
been convicted earlier. Case Venkataramanappa v/s State of Karnatka-1992.
Conditions for Bail:- Under sec. 437(3) that where a person accused or suspected
of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend
to 7 years or more or for an offence, abetment of or conspiracy or attempt to
commit any such offence is released on bail, the court may impose any condition
which the court considers necessary, as in the case of Gurbaksh Singh v/s State
of Punjab-1980:-
Can a person get order to be released on Bail without judicial or Police custody:-
Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation
of having committed a non-bailable offence he may apply to the High Court or
the Court of Session for a direction under sec. 438 that in the event of such arrest
he shall be released on bail.
*It was held in Adri Dharam dass v/s State of W.B-2005; it was held that it is
exercised in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence. The object
of this section is that the moment a person is arrested if he has already obtained
an order from High court of Court of Session he shall be released immediately on
bail without being sent to jail.
*It was also held in Vaman Narain Ghiya v/s State of Rajasthan-2009, direction
u/s 438 that the applicant shall be released on bail whenever arrested for
whichever offence whatsoever such a blanket order should not be passed.
i) That the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police officer
as and when required. ii) The person shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case. iii) That the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the court. iv) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by Police on
such accusation and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while
in the custody of police station to give bail, he shall be released on bail.
1. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: – The High court or the
Session Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any
inferior criminal court of his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or
passed, u/s 397 of the code. Case Johar & Others v/s Mangal Prasad and another-
2008, it was held that trial court is not found to be passed without considering
relevant evidence or by considering irrelevant evidence.
In a case of Badri Lal v/s State of M.P.-1989: The powers under this section are
undoubtedly wide and the Session Judge can take up the matter suo motu, it
must be seen that the criminal law is not used as an instrument of private
vengeance.
Kuldeep Singh v/s State of M.P.-1989: It was held that the order framing charge
could not be lightly interfered with in revision.
In vinod kumar v/s Mohawati-1990: That the court of Session has similar powers
as of High Court in revision and as the High Court is authorized to take additional
evidence in revision.
In Gram Sabha Lakhanpur v/s Ram Dev-1993:- It was held that the complainant
may or may not have a legal right of being heard but the rule of prudence and
natural justice requires that the aggrieved party must be afforded an opportunity
of hearing.
In a case of Paul George v/s State-2002, it was held that during the hearing of
Revision argue the person applying for revision should be considered seriously
even though if they are too brief.
2. Order of Inquiry:- Sec. 398 of the code provides powers of issuing order of
inquiry to High Court or court of Session. Accordingly on examining any record
under sec.397 or otherwise the High Court or Session Judge may direct CJM by
himself or by any of Magistrate subordinate to him to make inquiry of any
complaint which has been dismissed under sec.203 or the case of any person
accused of an offence who has been discharged.
ii) Where the order of trial court has failed to provide justice.
iii) Where the trial court has tried a case which fall beyond its jurisdiction.
iv) Where the trial court has stopped taking evidence unlawfully.
Here it is pertinent to mention that any party has applied for revision believing
that no appeal lies there but an appeal lies there then the court shall consider
such application for appeal in the interest of justice u/s 401(2). The order of
acquittal cannot be reversed into an order of conviction in revision as held in case
of Singher Singh v/s State of Haryana-2004, u/s 401(3).
6.Copy of the order to be send to lower court:- Sec. 405 of the code provides that
where any case is revised by High Court or court of session, it or he shall in the
manner provided by sec.388, certify its decision or order to the court of by which
the finding, sentence or order revised was recorded or passed and the court to
which decision or order is so certified shall thereupon make such orders as are
confirmable to the decision so certified and if necessary record shall be amended
in accordance there with.
a)Each and every page of judgment when it is made should be singed, mentioning
the date of delivery of the judgment in open court.
d)If the accused is in the custody he shall be brought up to hear the judgment
pronounced. And if the accused is not in custody he shall be required by the court
to attend to hear the judgement pronounced.
e) Where there are more accused than one and one or more of them do not attend
the court on date on which the judgement is pronounced. Presiding officer to
avoid delay in the disposal of the case pronounce the judgement even their
absence.
2.Language & contents of Judgement: – According to sec.354 the judgement
should be written in language of court which contains points for determination,
the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. If it be a judgement of
acquittal, shall state the offence of which accused is acquittal and direct that he
be set at liberty. Sec.354(3) when all the murderers are to be sentenced with
death sentence will become a dead law as held in a case of Muniappan v/s State
of Tami Nadu-1981.
3 Order for notifying address of previously convicted offender: – When any person
having been convicted by a court in India of an offence punishable which relates
to criminal intimidation with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards
is again convicted of any offence punishable Court may order that his residence
and any change of such residence after release be notified. Such rules may
provide for punishment for the breach thereof, under sec.356.
7. Copy of the Judgement to be given to the accused & other persons:-When the
accused is sentenced to imprisonment a copy of the judgement shall immediately
after the pronouncement of the judgement be given to him free of cost. In case
of Ladli Prasad Zutshi v/s State of Allahbad-1931, it was held that even public
has a right to obtain a copy of the judgement of any criminal court. This has been
provided in sec. 363 of Cr.P.C.-1973.
· When anticipatory Bail would be Accepted:- Section 438(1) says that, “when
any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of
having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or court
of Session for a direction under this sec.438(1) and court if thinks it fit, can direct
that in event of such arrest he shall be released on bail.” Case of Gurbaksh Singh
v/s State of Punjab-1980, he was not granted anticipatory bail merely on fear of
arrest. In a similar case of Ashok kumar v/s State of Rajasthan-1980, that
anticipatory bail should not accepted until there is a definite fear of arrest and
such fact has come before the court.
It is pertinent to mention here that reason to believe does not mean mere fear,
i.e. mere ‘fear’ is not sufficient cause. Grounds on which belief is based must be
capable of being examined.
· Who shall accept the Anticipatory Bail:- Sec. 438 (1) that the following
authorities may accept the anticipator bail application:
a. That the person shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
c. That the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required.
d. That any such other condition as may be imposed under sec.437 if the bail is
granted under this section.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN MURDER CASE: – There is no set principle fixed for grant
of anticipatory bail. It is basically depends upon the facts and circumstances of
every case and the nature of the case. Generally the anticipatory bail is not to be
granted in the matters like murder, unnatural death, dourly death.
A case if SamunderSingh v/s State of Rajasthan -1987, the court held that the
anticipatory bail cannot be accepted in dowry death cases especially where father-
in-law and mother-in-law caused unnatural death of the daughter-in-law.
Even the facts mentioned above the anticipatory bail can be granted in Murder
cases on the basis of following circumstances:-
HEARING OF PROSECUTION
UNIT-V
Bailable offences: – Bailable offences are of general nature and in these offences
it is right of accused to be released on bail. Sec.436 of Cr.P.C. pertains to Bailable
offences.
Non-Bailable offences: – These offences are of severe nature and bail cannot be
claimed as right in them. In such cases bail depends upon the discretion of the
court. Sec. 437 relates to Non-bailable offences, under section 437 and 439
relates to non-bailment offence.
Grant of Bail in Non-bailable offences: – Sec. 437 provides that when any person
accused of or suspected of commission of any non bailable offence is arrested or
detained without warrant by an Officer I/C of a Police station or appears or is
brought before a court other than the High Court or court of Session he may be
released on bail.
Thus section 437 empowered a Magistrate to take bail in non bailable offences.
The provision of this makes it clear that bail in non bailable offences depends
upon the discretion of the court.
When bail shall be Granted:- Sec. 437(1) of the code lays down the following
situations in which bail shall not be granted by the Magistrate:-
1 Sec. 437(3) of the code provides that where a person accused or suspected of
the commission of an offence punishable which may extend to seven year or
more or of an offence defined in IPC and any such offence the accused is released
on bail the court however may impose any condition which the court considers
necessary:-
ARREST OF A PERSON
Introduction: – Generally, a person is arrested by the order of the magistrate or
by a warrant. A police officer cannot arrest a person arbitrarily or without the
order of magistrate or without warrant. But this rule has few exceptions to it
which means that under certain circumstances a person can be arrested without
the order of the magistrate or without warrant.
Arrest without warrant:- Sec. 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 provides
that a police officer can arrest a person without the orders or warrant of the
magistrate in following situations:
(8) When any person has been concerned in any cognizable offence or
against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has
been received or a reasonable suspicion exists. Of his having been so concerned.
(9) When any person has in his possession without lawful excuse any
implement of house-breaking.
(10) When any person in whose possession anything is found which may
reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be
suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such things.
(11) When any person obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his
duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape from lawful custody.
(12) When any person is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any
of the armed forces of the union.
(13) When any person being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule
made under sub-section (5) of section 356;
(14) When for any persons arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has
been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifics
the person to be arrested.
Thus, in this way a police officer under sec 41(1) can arrest any person without
the order or warrant of a magistrate.
CHARGE
INTRODUCTION: – The object of the rule embodied in the sec. 218 of Cr. P. C., is
to ensure a fair trial and to see that the accused is not bewildered or perplex to
confuse by having been asked to defend several unconnected charges or distinct
offences lumped together in one charge or in separate charges. We will read the
rules relating to joinder of charges described in different part of this section. There
is no exception to the rule that there should be separate charge for each
offence. The detail study of this section is as under:-
DEFINITION: – For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there
shall be a separate charge and every charge shall be tried separately. Where the
accused person by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of
opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, Magistrate may
try together all or any number of the charges famed against such person.
3. Three offences of the same kind within year may be charged together:- under
section 219 of Cr. P. C. when a person is accused of more offences than one of
the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the
last of such offences, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number
of them not exceeding three. Provisions of section are only enabling provisions,
it applies where offences are of the same kind but it does not apply where offences
are not of the same kind such as criminal breach of trust and falsification of
accounts. Rahmat v/s State of U. P.-1980.
Trial for than one offence:- If in one series of Acts so connected together as to
form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same
person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such
2. Appeals from Convictions: – According to section 374 of code that any person
convicted on a trial by a H/C in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may
appeal to Supreme Court similar any person convicted by session judge or on a
trial held by any other court which sentence or imprisonment is more than 7 years
may appeal to High court. Case Panchi v/s State of U.P.-1998, In C.Gopinathan
v/s State of Kerala-1991
3. Appeal by State against sentence: – Under sec.377, the state Government may
in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than a H/C direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy to Court of Session if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate or to
the H/C if the sentence is passed by any other Court. When an appeal is filed
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy court shall not enhance the
sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of sowing
cause against such enhancement. Case of Nadir Khan v/s State-1976.
During the hearing of appeal from the order of acquittal it should be taken into
consideration that there is no miscarriage of justice, case Allahrakha K. Mansuri
v/s State of Gujrat-2002. The order of acquittal cannot be dismissed merely on
the ground that a second approach could have been applied in the case and it
means that the accused could have been convicted on considering another view
a case of Chandra Singh v/s State of Gujrat-2002.
COMPLAINT CASE
DEFINITION: – Sec. 200 says, that the preliminary procedure which a Magistrate
shall follow on receiving a complaint. It is obligatory to examine the complainant
and the witnesses and a summary dismissal without them is not legal. The
substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by
the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. If a public servant
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has
made the complaint or the magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to
another Magistrate under sec.192.
iii) To help the magistrate to judge if there is sufficient ground for calling the
investigation and for proceeding with the case. Case: Balraj Khanna v/s Motiram-
1971.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
INTRODUCTION: – Anticipatory bail has an important place in the series of Bail.
Its main object is to protect the innocent persons from arrest under sec. 438 of
the criminal procedure code-1973 lays down the provisions regarding grant of
anticipatory bail.
What is Anticipatory Bail: – In-spite of the fact that the Cr.P.C., has not defined
Anticipatory Bail but it means that when a person has a reason to believe that he
may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he
may apply to High Court or to the court of Session that in the event of such arrest
he shall be released on bail at that time it is anticipatory bail. It is also called
Apprehension Bail on the basis of provisions laid down in sec. 438 of cr.P.C.
When anticipatory Bail would be Accepted:- Section 438(1) says that, “when any
person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having
committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or court of
Session for a direction under this sec.438(1) and court if thinks it fit, can direct
that in event of such arrest he shall be released on bail.” Case of Gurbaksh Singh
v/s State of Punjab-1980, he was not granted anticipatory bail merely on fear of
arrest. In a similar case of Ashok kumar v/s State of Rajasthan-1980, that
anticipatory bail should not accepted until there is a definite fear of arrest and
such fact has come before the court. It is pertinent to mention here that reason
to believe does not mean mere fear, i.e. mere ‘fear’ is not sufficient cause.
Grounds on which belief is based must be capable of being examined.
a. Sec. 438 (1) that the following authorities may accept the anticipatory bail
application: High Court, Court of Session.
b. That the person shall not leave India without previous permission of the
court. b)That person directly or indirectly make an inducement threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police Officer. c. That the person shall
make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
POWERS OF CRIMINAL
COURTS
INTRODUCTION: – Chapter III of the criminal procedure code deals with the
Powers of Courts to take cognizance of the offences. For this purpose the offences
are divided into two groups, i) Offences under IPC, and ii) offences under any
other law. The courts by which these two offences are triable are specified below:-
Courts by which these two offences are triable: – As per provisions laid down in
section 26 of the cod, the courts by which offences are triable:-
4. Any offence under any other law, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf
in such law, is tried by: i) High Court. ii) Any other court by which such offence
is shown in the first schedule.
Section 27: Jurisdiction in the case of Juveniles: Any offence not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life who at the date when he appears or is brought
before court under the age of 16 years may be tried by the court of CJM or any
other court which specially empowered.
Sentences which High Courts and Session Judges may pass: – As per provision
laid down in Sect. 28 of the code that:- (i) High Court may pass any sentence
authorized by law. (ii) Session Judge or ADJ may pass any sentence authorized
by law but any sentence of death passed by such judges shall be subject to
confirmation by the High Court.
Sentences which Magistrates may pass:- Sec.29 of Code, The court of CJM may
pass any sentence authorized by law except sentence of death or of imprisonment
for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding 7 years.
The court of Magistrate of First Class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding Rs.10, 000.
The court of 2nd Class Magistrate may pass an imprisonment for a term not
exceeding One year or of fine not exceeding Rs.5000/- or of both.
SUMMARY TRIALS
On the basis of provisions under section 260 of the code, power to try summarily:
– notwithstanding anything contained in this code, Any CJM, Any metropolitan
Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf
by the High Court, may if thinks fit try a summary way in all or any of the following
offences. Summary trial can also be done by the magistrate of second class u/s
261 of the code; the High Court may confer on any magistrate invested with the
powers of a Magistrate of the second class. If any from the above Magistrate’s
thinks fit, may try in a summary way for all or any of the following offences:-
1. Offences not punishable with death imprisonment for life imprisonment for a
term exceeding two years.
2. Theft under sec. 379, 380 and 381 of IPC where the value of the property
stolen does not exceed two thousand rupees.
3. Receiving of retaining of stolen property under sec.411, IPC, where the value
of the property does not exceed two thousand rupees.
6. Insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace under sec. 504 and with
imprisonment for term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both,
under sect. 506 of IPC. 7. Abetment of any of the foregoing offences. 8. An
attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences when such attempt is an offence.
The mode of trial is sought to be altered under this sub-section the trial must
from its inception to be conducted in the regular manner, case of State v/s
D.N.Patel-1971. The Magistrate under this section as a discretion o try the
offences specified in this section in a summarily way.
Procedure of summary trials: – Under sec. 262 of the code is related to the
procedure for summary trial, shall be the same as in summons case except in so
far as it is modified by the provisions. In the case of summary trial the limit of
term of sentence of imprisonment is three months. However if the court is
considers it necessary that a longer sentence is necessary in the interest of justice
in any case the trial should be held as in a warrant case or as a summon case
according to the nature of the offence.
PLEA BARGAINING
Under section 265A of the code, described that the application of the
provisions of this section in respect of accused against whom the report has been
forwarded by the officer in charge of Police station under sec.173, the offence
appears to have been committed by him and the Magistrate has taken cognizance
of an offence on complaint other than an offence for which the punishment of
death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years and
examining complainant and witnesses issued the process as per law.
Application for plea bargaining: Sec.265B of the code lays that a person accused
of an offence may file application for plea bargaining in the court in which the
offence is pending for trial. The application accompanied by an affidavit sworn by
the accused stating therein that he has voluntarily preferred after understanding
the nature and extent of punishment provided under the law for the offence the
plea bargaining in his case and that he has not previously been convicted by a
court in a case which he had been charged with the same offence.
POWER OF THE COURT IN PLE BARGAINING:- A court shall have for the purposes
of discharging its functions under the provisions in section 265H, all he powers
vested in respect of bail, trial of offences and other matters relating to the
disposal of a case in such court on the basis of above provisions.