INTRODUCTION

A summary trial implies speedy disposal. A summary case is one which can be tried and
disposed of at once. Needless to say, the summary procedure is not intended for a contentious
and complicated case which merits a full and lengthy inquiry.
Thus, the object of summary trial is to have a record which is sufficient for the purpose of
justice, and yet, not so long as to impede a speedy disposal of the case. In other words, a
summary trial is “summary” only in respect of the record of its proceedings, and not in
respect of the proceedings themselves, which should be complete and carefully conducted, as
in any other criminal case.
Under the old Code, in a summary trial, the summons procedure was to be followed in the
summons-cases and the warrant procedure in warrant-cases. However, the present Code has
now done away with this distinction, and the procedure has been simplified by providing that,
in a summary trial, all cases should be tried by the summons procedure, whether the case is a
summons-case or warrant-case.
'Summary trials' are designed to do away with detailed examinations and oral evidences
which lead to delays and put justice beyond the reach of the common man, besides worsening
the problem of pendency.
Summons cases may mandatorily attract a summary trial. If the magistrates opt for a detailed
trial, then they may have to give "cogent" reasons for their decision.
It has been recognised that 'warrants case' ought to be treated differently from 'summons case'
as the former has a punishment ranging up to death while that for the latter does not go
beyond two years. "What is the use of detailed examinations of witnesses etc? It is criminal
waste of court time," an official felt.1 Thus Summary trials are somewhat similar to fast track
proceeding where a case is resolved in one sitting. Meant for petty offenses, to reduce the
burden of court.

1
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-11-17/delhi/27808314_1_compoundable-summons-offences

1
SUMMARY TRIAL UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
MAGISTRATES COMPETENT TO TRY AND THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED
1. Summary trials can be held only by a District Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class
empowered in that behalf, or a Bench of Magistrates empowered under either section 260 or
section 261 of the Code. Only offences specified in these sections may be tried by this
procedure. The amendments made by Act 26 of 1955 in Section 260 of the Code to enlarge
its scope may be noted. In view of the amended definition of 'warrant case' it would not now
be true to say that all summons cases can be tried summarily. According to clause (a) of
Section 260(1) offences not punishable with death; imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a term exceeding six months can be so tried. In summary trials the procedure to be followed
at the hearing is that of summons-case in the trial of summons cases and of warrant-case in
the trial of warrant cases (Section 262) subject to the modifications made by sections 263 and
264 of the Code as to the record required.

SENTENCE AND JUDGEMENT

2. No sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months may be passed on a conviction under
the summary procedure prescribed in Chapter XXII of the Code [sub-section (2) of section
262]. Where the sentence passed is not appealable (section 413) the particulars required under
section 263 of the Code may be recorded. In appealable cases, however, the Court shall
record the substance of the evidence and also the particulars mentioned in section 263 and
shall before passing sentence also record judgment in the case (section 2 64). No other record
is required. Particulars required under section 263 include full information as to the nature of
the offence alleged and proved, the plea of the accused and his examination, if any; the
finding and in case of conviction; a brief statement of the reasons therefore and the sentence
or other final order.

EVIDENCE
3. In all summary trials in which the order of the Magistrate is final; no evidence need be
recorded; but the Magistrate should enter the particulars mentioned in section 263 of the
Code in register No. XVII given in Part B-IV of Volume VI-B. Columns 7 to 14 of this
register should be filled in by the Magistrate himself. If, however, a sentence is passed which
is appealable; the substance of the evidence, in addition to the particulars mentioned in
Section 263, should be recorded.

2
ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED IN WARRANT CASES
4. The question has been raised whether an accused person; tried summarily for warrant
offence; under Chapter XXII of 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.

ORAL CHARGE
5. Accordingly, the distinction between an acquittal and a discharge, shown in sections 253
and 258 of the Code, holds good in all warrant-cases tried summarily; the only difference
being that under the ordinary procedure the charge must be prepared in writing; while under
the summary procedure it is made verbally. A discharge in a summary trial no more bars the
revival of prosecution for the same offence than it does in a case conducted under the rules of
ordinary procedure.

FINAL ORDER SHOULD SHOW WHETER ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED OR

ACQUITTED
6. The final order or judgment in warrant-cases tried summarily, when the accused is not
convicted; should invariably show whether the accused person has been discharged or
acquitted; the test being whether, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution, the Court has
called upon the prisoner to plead to a definite charge or not, and the accused in such cases
should be shown in the periodical statements as discharged or acquitted, according to the
final order of the magistrate.

SUMMARY TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST GOVERNMENT SERVANTS

7. In the trial of cases against Government servants, summary procedure should not, as a rule,
be adopted.

SENTENCE AND JUDGEMENT

8. It has come to the notice of the Honorable Judges that summary cases entered in the
relevant registers only when the accused appears in Court, with the result that a large number
of such cases escape the notice of Courts. It is of the utmost importance that as soon as a
summary case is received in Court, it should be entered in the Register No. 1 (Part B-IV of
Volume VI-B, High Court Rules and Orders). When the accused appears the case should then
be entered in Register of summary cases (Form No. XVII). Magistrates exercising summary

3
powers should prepare a statement every month showing the actual number of summary cases
received in the Court and the progress made in the disposal of such cases. A Summary of this
statement should be given in the remarks column of Register No. 1 at the close of each month
so as to show at a glance the actual number of summary cases received, disposed of and
pending in the Court. [High Court Circular letter No. 3003-Genl./XVIII-D-20 (C)(1), dated
the 19th March, 1964.]2

2
highcourtchd.gov.in/left_menu/highcourtruleandorders/vol.../chap2.

4
THE LAW OF PROCEDURE CONCERNING SUMMARY TRIALS

Chapter XXII (comprising sections 260 to 265 is Of Summary Trials in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. Section 260 states the power of the Magistrates to try in a summary way
any of the offences mentioned in that section. Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 reads as under:

 260. (Power to try summarily). (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code,-

(a) ***

(b) any Magistrate of the First class specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial
Government, and

(c) any Bench of Magistrates invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the first class and
especially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government, may if he thinks fit, try in
a summary way all or any of the following offences:

(a) offences not punishable with death, transportation or imprison ment for a term exceeding
six months;

(b) offences relating to weights and measures under sections 264, 265 and 266 of the Pakistan
Penal Code;

(c) hurt under clause (a0 of section 377A of the same Code;

(d) theft under section 379, 380 and 381 of the same Code, where the value of the property
stolen does not exceed ten thousand rupees;

(e) dishonest misappropriation of property under section 403 of the same Code, where the
value of the property misappropriated does not exceed ten thousand rupees;

(f) receiving or retaining stolen property under section 411 of the same Code, where the value
of such property does not exceed ten thousand rupees;

(g) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property under section 414 of the same
Code, where the value of such property does not exceed ten thousand rupees;

(h) mischief, under section 427 of the same Code;

5
(i) house trespass, under section 448 and offences under section 451, 453, 454, 456 and 457
of the same Code;

(j) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace under section 504, and criminal
intimidation, under section 506 of the same Code;

(jj) offence of personation at an election under section 171-F of the same Code;

(k) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;

(l) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;

(m) offences under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871;

From what has been stated above, it is clear that it is in the discretion of a Magistrate to try
any of the above offences in a summary manner. Whether a particular case is to be tried
summarily should be determined by the offence complained of and the testimony of the
Complainant.
As pointed out by the Allahabad High Court, if the case is a complicated one, it should not be
tried summarily.3 The Bombay High Court has observed that if the accused is deaf and dumb,
it would be convenient to try him summarily.4
It is also provided that the High Court may confer on any Magistrate who is vested with the
powers of a Second Class Magistrate, the power to try summarily, any offence which is
punishable only with fine, or with imprisonment upto six months, with or without fine, and
any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence.

(2) When in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Magistrate or Bench that the case
is one which is of a character which renders undesirable that if it should be tried summarily,
the Magistrate of Bench shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed
to re-hear the case in a manner provided by this Code.
 Section 261.(Summary trial by magistrate of 2nd and 3rd ) empowers the Provincial
Government on the recommendation of the High Court to confer on any Bench of
Magistrates invested with the power of a Magistrate of the second or third class,
power to try summarily all or any of the following offences-

3
Dina Nath,—1913 35 All. 173.
4
Deaf & Dumb Man, — 1906 B.L.R. 849

6
(a) offences against the PPC section 277, 278, 279, 285, 286, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294,
337A(i) , 337L(2), 337H (2), 341, 352, 426, 447 and 504;

(b) offences against municipal Acts, and the conservancy clauses of Police Acts which are
punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month with or
without fine;

(c) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;

(d) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences when such attempt is an offence.

In Ram Lochan vs State5- 1978, it was held that although trying a govt. servant summarily is
legal, it should not be done so because upon conviction, govt. servant may lose his job, which
is a serious loss.

 Section 262. (Procedure for summary trial )gives the procedure prescribed in chapter
XX. It has two sub-sections.

Subsection (1) says: In trials under this chapter, the procedure prescribed in chapter XX shall
be followed except as hereinafter mentioned.

Sub-section (2) prescribes the limit of punishment and says that no sentence of imprisonment
for term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction under this
Chapter.

As seen above, the Magistrate cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment of any term
exceeding three months for any conviction under this Chapter. Therefore, any sentence that
exceeds this period would be illegal. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that a longer period of
imprisonment is necessary in the interest of justice, the trial should be held as in a warrant-
case or a summons-case, according to the nature of the offence.
It should be observed that there is no limit as to the amount of fine which the Magistrate can
impose in a summary trial.
Moreover, the above maximum limit of imprisonment refers only to the substantive sentence,
and does not cover an alternate sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Thus,
a Magistrate can impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine in addition

5
CriLJ 544.

7
to the maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment which he has imposed for the
offence.6

 Section 26.3(Record in summary trials) lays down the minimum requirement of law
as to record in cases where there is no appeal. It states: In cases where no appeal lies,
the Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates need not record the evidence of the witnesses
or frame a formal charge; but he or they shall enter in such form as the Provincial
Government may direct the following particulars:

(a) the serial number;

(b) the date of the commission of 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
(d), clause (e), clause (f) or clause (g) of subsection (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, and in the case of a conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefore;

(i) the sentence or other final order; and

(j) the date on which the proceedings terminated.

 Section 264. (Judgement in case tried summarily) speaks of the record in appealable
cases and states that,-(1) In every case tried summarily by a Magistrate or Bench in
which an appeal lies, such Magistrate or bench shall record the substance of the
evidence and also the particulars mentioned in section 263, and shall before passing
any sentence record a judgment in the case.

 Section 265. (Language of the record and judgement) has four sub-sections.

6
Asghar AH,—1883 6 All. 61

8
Sub-section (1) states that records made under section 263 and judgments recorded under
section 264 shall be written by the Presiding Officer, either in English or in the language of
the Court, or if the Court to which such presiding officer is immediately subordinate so
direct, in such officer's mother-tongue.

Sub-Section (2) empowers the Provincial Government to authorize any Bench of magistrates
empowered to try offences summarily to prepare the aforesaid record or Judgment by means
of an officer appointed in this behalf by the Court to which such bench is immediately
subordinate, and the record or judgment so prepared shall be signed by each member of such
Bench present taking part in the proceedings.

Sub-section (3) states that if no such authorization be given the record prepared by a member
of the Bench and signed as aforesaid shall be the proper record.

Sub-section (4) states that if the Bench differs in opinion, any dissentient member may write
a separate judgment.

An interesting case decided by the Madras High Court, a Magistrate convicted an accused
summarily of a Municipal offence, without issuing any process or making any record of the
proceeding, and without even dismounting from a pony on which he was riding. The Court
held that the record must have been prepared after the close of the “trial” from memory or
from rough notes, and that the entire procedure was illegal.7

Appeal and Revision in Summary Trials

No appeal lies if only a sentence of fine not exceeding 200/- is awarded. A revision
application would lie to the High Court in such a case.8

7
Erugadu,—1891 15 Mad. 53
8
http://hanumant.com/CrPC-DifferencesShortNotes.html

9
CONCLUSION
The committee, constituted by the Union Government under the chairmanship of Justice
V.S.Malimath, former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala high courts, in its report, has
expressed concern over the long delay in decision-making, particularly in trial courts.
If only the summary procedure prescribed under Sections 262 to 264 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) are exercised properly, the pace of justice will be quickened
considerably, the committee has said.
Criminal cases are divided into two categories, warrant cases relating to offences punishable
with death, imprisonment for term exceeding two years, and summons cases where the upper
limit of imprisonment that can be awarded is two years and/or fine. All summons cases, and a
few enumerated warrant cases can be tried summarily by all magistrates, including
metropolitan magistrates, and not all, but specially empowered judicial magistrates first class
(JMFCs).
At present, a large number of cases, in which the punishment is two years or less, are tried
and, if only the summary procedure prescribed under Sections 262 to 264 of the Cr. P.C. is
exercised properly, it will quicken the pace of justice considerably, according to the
committee. However, the committee says that the number of cases, which are at present tried
summarily, is quite small and the maximum punishment that can be given after a summary
trial is three months.
It has lamented that Section 260 (power to try summarily) and Section 355 (metropolitan
magistrate's judgment) of the Cr. P.C. are either unutilised or underutilised. Only those
magistrates who are duly empowered namely, the chief judicial magistrates and metropolitan
magistrates, can try the cases summarily. But most of the magistrates are not empowered to
do so. "This is among the many reasons why summary procedures are not fully utilised," the
committee has said. As a judge of the same status can deal with the case summarily when he
is posted as a metropolitan judge without any empowerment, there is no reason why such
empowerment is needed for other magistrates to deal with cases summarily under Section
262 (procedure for summary trial) of the Cr.P.C.
To speed up the process, the committee has expressed the view that all cases in which the
punishment is three years and below should be tried summarily and punishment, which can
be given, is increased to three years.

10
The panel has said that it is in favour of the recommendation made by the Law Commission
in its 154th report for enhancement of the limit of sentence prescribed under Section 262 to
three years.
Suitable amendments should be also be made to see that offences punishable with
imprisonment lower than three years shall become summons case, which shall be tried
through the summary procedure laid down.
The committee has said that a ceiling of Rs. 200 fixed for the value of property under Section
262 is too low and it should be enhanced to Rs. 5,000 considering the declining value of the
rupee. No prejudice will be caused to the accused by the enhancement, it says.
The committee is of the view that a large number of cases, which do not involve serious
offences, can be disposed of expeditiously, and it has stressed the need for arranging training
to magistrates for following the summary procedure. The training should include mock trials
and writing of judgments in summary trials, it has said. The committee has expressed the
view that the definition of "petty offence" given in Section 206 of the Cr. P.C. should be
suitably modified.
It is necessary to enlarge the limit prescribed for fine in petty offences from the present Rs.
1,000 to Rs. 5,000. The summary trial procedure and procedure for trying petty cases should
be adopted with great advantage in dealing with offences under Special Local Laws, the
committee has felt.
One of the causes for delay even in the commencement of trial of a criminal case is the
serving of summons on the accused. Despite the procedure laid down for the purpose in the
Cr. P.C., the committee has noted that rules unfortunately have not been framed by many
State governments to enable summons to be served other than through police officers. Section
62 of the Cr. P.C. should be amended to provide for serving summons on accused through
registered post with acknowledgement due, and courier service should be adopted wherever
the facility is available.
If there is a fax facility it should also be used and any endorsement made by the postman that
the summons has been "refused" should be deemed sufficient and warrant can be issued.9

9
http://www.hindu.com/2003/07/03/stories/2003070302060500.htm

11
REFERENCES
1. Offences and Defences in Criminal Trial, Justice ® Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, Muneeb
Book House, Lahore, 2012;
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Shaukat Mahmud and Nadeem Shaoukat Advocates,
Lahore, 2010.
3. Wharton's Law Lexicon, Universal Law Company, New Delhi.
4. AIR
5. PLD
6. Cr. Law Journal.

WEBSITES
 http://www.hindu.com/2003/07/03/stories/2003070302060500.htm
 http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032929248/short-essay-on-summary-trials.html
 http://www.legallyindia.com/easyblog/delhi-high-court-lays-down-procedure-to-be-
followed-for-offences-us-138-ni-act-html
 http://law.chdfirms.com/criminal_procedure_code/chapter_21.php
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Summary-Trial-5630.asp#.UhrQEJwhPtg
 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-11-
17/delhi/27808314_1_compoundable-summons-offences
 http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/CODE%20OF%20CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE,
%201973/CHAPTER%20XXI%20SUMMARY%20TRIALS
 http://bdknowledgeoflaw.blogspot.in/2011/11/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-
of.html
 http://hanumant.com/CrPC-Unit2-Summons.html
 http://hanumant.com/CrPC-DifferencesShortNotes.html

12