UNIT-III

PART-II

SUMMARY TRIALS

Summary Trials are the trials which are speedily disposed and with the simplified procedure of
recording the trials. The principle of the summary trial is based on the legal maxim ‘justice
delayed is justice denied’. In this type of trial, only the offences which fall into the small/petty
category are tried. Complex cases are reserved for warrant or summons trial. To determine
whether a case should be tried summarily, the facts stated in the complaint form the primary
basis. The objective of summary trials is the expeditious disposal of cases to lessen the burden on
the judiciary. The trial gives a fair opportunity to people for procuring justice in less time.
The trial is to be shortened or simplified by having recourse to certain provision in matter of-
a. Preparation of record,
b. Recording of evidence,
c. Judgment,
d. The sentencing power with regard to imprisonment has also been limited to 3 months.
The right of appeal in summary trial is also abridged.
Summary Trials are mentioned in Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
Section 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) deals with the provisions
related to summary trials.

Power to try summarily

According to section 260(1), notwithstanding anything contained in the code-
a. Any chief judicial magistrate;
b. Any metropolitan magistrate;
c. Any first-class magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court.
d. High Court may empower any Magistrate of the second class to try summarily any offence
punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months with or
without fine and any attempt or abetment of such offences. [Section 261]

1
It may be noted that if any magistrate not being empowered by law in this behalf tries an
offender summarily, then according to clause (m) of section 461 his proceedings shall be void.
Offences which can be tried summarily.
Any Chief Judicial Magistrate, any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Magistrate of the First Class
specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court may try in a summary way all or any of the
following offence:
i. Offences which are not punishable with death or imprisonment with life or
imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years;
ii. Offences relating to theft prescribed under sections 379, 380 and 381 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), where the stolen property is not valued more than two thousand
rupees;
iii. Offences relating to receiving or retaining any stolen property, under section 411 of
the IPC, where the value of the property does not exceed two thousand rupees;
iv. An offence where a person has assisted in concealing or disposing of stolen
property, not worth more than 2000 rupees, under Section 414 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860
v. Offences covered under Section 454 and Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
vi. An offence relating to insulting with intent to provoke a breach of peace, under
section 504 of the IPC; the offence as prescribed under section 506 of the IPC
relating to criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both;
vii. Any abetment of the abovementioned offences;
viii. Any attempt to commit the above-mentioned offences, where the attempt of such
offence is punishable;
ix. If an act is committed which constitutes an offence, for which a complaint can be
filed under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871

The offence of “insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace” under section 504 IPC
referred to in clause (vi) above is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

2
two years at the most. It can, therefore, be easily covered by clause (i) above and it was not quite
necessary to include it specially in clause (vi).
In Prakash Chand v. State 1977 it was held that clause (i) refers to all offences irrespective of
the fact whether any such offence is committed under the IPC or any other special enactment.

As per section 260 (2) summary trial maybe converted into regular trial
It provides that any witness can be recalled for examining and to re-hear when it appears
necessary to the Magistrate that the case should not be tried summarily, and proceed in the
manner provided by this code.
In the case of State of Gujarat v. D.N. Patel (1971) it was held that if there is a change from
summary to regular trial, the trial from its inception must be conducted in the regular manner.
But in the case of K. Jayachandaran v. O. Nargeese (1987) it was held that if a case was tried
as a summon case by one magistrate though it could have been tried summarily, there is no need
for the successor magistrate to restart the case from its inception. On the contrary, it is possible
for him to start the case from the stage where the predecessor left.

Procedure for summary trial

Section 262 (1) strictly provides that the procedure for summary trials shall be conducted as per
the procedure established for conducting the trials of summons-case, except otherwise provided.
Further, it is prohibited by section 262 (2) of the Code to pass any sentence of imprisonment for
a term exceeding 3 months for any conviction in respect of summary trials.

The question has been raised whether an accused person, tried summarily for a warrant offence,
under Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not convicted, is to be shown in the
statement as ‘discharged’ or ‘acquitted’. This question is disposed of by the provisions of Section
262 of the Code, which enacts that in summary trials the procedure for warrant-cases shall be
followed in respect of warrant-cases, with certain exceptions which concern only the manner of
record.
3
Record in summary trial
The procedure to formulate a record in summary trials is laid down in Section 263 of the Code.
In every case tried summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form as the State Government
may direct, the following particulars, namely:
(a) the serial number of the case;
(b) the date of the commission of the offence;
(c) the date of the report or complaint;
(d) the name of the complainant (if any);
(e) the name, parentage and residence of the accused;
(f) the offence complained of and the offence (if any) proved, and in cases coming under clause
(ii), clause (iii) or clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 260, the value of the property in
respect of which the offence has been committed;
(g) the plea of the accused and his examination (if any);
(h) the finding;
(i) the sentence or other final order;
(j) the date on which proceedings terminated.

In the case of Court on its own motion v. SH. Shankroo (1983) it was held regarding “the
offence complained of” mentioned in Clause (f) above, it is the duty of the trial court to give the
substance of the offence by mentioning necessary facts which constituted the offence.

Judgment in cases Tried Summarily
Section 264 lays down that in every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead
guilty, the Magistrate must record the substance of the evidence and the judgment that is delivered
must also contain a brief statement of the reason for coming in a particular finding.

In the case of Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed (1980) it was held that the judgment
should be such as to enable a court of appeal or revision to know from its perusal, the nature of the

4
case, the substance of the evidence and the reasons for the finding so that such courts might be in a
position to examine the correctness or propriety or illegality if such finding.
It was also held that the record maintained under section 263 and the judgment under section 264
are distinct.

Language of Record and Judgment
Section 265 emphasizes that every such record i.e., the particulars mentioned in s. 263 and the
substance of evidence and judgment must be recorded in the language of the Court.
All the records and judgments are to be written in the language of the concerned Court. The High
Court can bestow the power upon any Magistrate who is empowered to try offences summarily,
to prepare the above-mentioned record or judgment or both. This can be done through an officer
appointed for the purpose by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well. Such record or judgment
prepared has to be signed by the Magistrate. [section 265(2)]

Section 326(3): The provision of Section 326 (3), Cr.P.C. bars the use of prerecorded evidence

by successor Judge only when the trial has to be conducted according to the provisions of

Sections 262 and 265, Cr.P.C.(i.e., summary trial). When in a summary trial, the evidence has

been recorded partly be one Magistrate who has taken notes of evidence and made them part of

the record of the case and that Magistrate is succeeded by another Magistrate, the successor can

decide the case on the evidence partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by

himself. It is not required that in every case where the case is sent to another Magistrate, the

evidence must be reheard. It depends upon the particular case and the manner in which the

evidence has been recorded.

In Shivaji Sampat Jagtap vs. Rajan Hiralal Arora, it was held by the Bombay High Court that
if the procedure mentioned in Section 263 and Section 264 of the Code has not been particularly
followed, then the succeeding Magistrate does not need to hold a trial de novo. In this case, the
petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The

5
Magistrate issued the process, summons to the accused was served and consequently, his plea
was recorded. But before the Magistrate could deliver the judgment, he ceased to have
jurisdiction and was succeeded by another Magistrate.

The new Magistrate delivered a judgment on the basis of evidence which was recorded by his
predecessor. An appeal was filed that the new Magistrate should have conducted a de novo trial
as contemplated under Section 326(3) as the predecessor had conducted the case as a summary
trial. As this was not done, it was contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated. The Sessions
Court then quashed the conviction. Therefore, this revision application was filed. It was held by
the Court that the present case was not tried summarily. It was, in fact, tried as a summons case.
Therefore, the impugned judgment was quashed.

And the same view is upheld in J.V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat 2015.

Difference between Summary and Regular trials

A summary trial is very much dissimilar to any regular trials as follows:

1. A summary trial can be conducted only for specified offences which are minor in
nature whereas more complicated and serious nature of offences is tried in regular
trials.
2. In summary trials, only the substance of evidence and the disposition is briefly
recorded but in regular trials, the evidence is recorded carefully and in full.
3. No formal charge is required to be framed by Magistrate in summary trials but in
regular trials, a formal charge sheet is required to be drawn up.

Similarities and differences between summary trials and other trials

Similarities
There are certain similarities in summary trials and regular trials. In all the trials, the evidence is
collected, a record is maintained, charges are read over to the accused, the accused person is
examined, a competent Magistrate conducts the proceedings and finally an order/judgment is
delivered. Another common factor is that ‘illegality’ vitiates the entire trial, but ‘irregularity’
does not.
6
Differences

1. Summary trials are less complicated in comparison to warrants and summons trials.
2. The procedure followed in summary cases is shorter and less time consuming than
other trials.
3. Summary trials deal with cases that consist of minor offences of simple nature as
opposed to serious cases which are tried in summons/warrant trials.
4. The statements of witnesses are compiled in a brief and general manner in summary
trials. Focus is placed on recording the substance of their depositions. In other trials,
the depositions of all the witnesses are recorded with minute intricacy.
5. The Magistrate does not have to frame formal charges against the accused person in
summary trials. In other trials, a formal charge has to be written down.
6. In the case of summary trials, it is not essential to record the evidence in its entirety. A
brief outline works. In other trials, it is crucial that the entire evidence is recorded
completely.