Synopsis CrPC

Topic- SUMMARY TRIALS

Introduction
I. Section 260. Power to try summarily.
● Comment
● Scope
● Nature of punishment [ Clause (1)
● Power where summary trial not desirable [ Sub-section (2) ]
II. Section 261. Summary trial by magistrate of the second class.
● This section empowers the Magistrate of the second class who has been
invested with the powers by the High Court to try summarily any offence
which is punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months with or without fine. The power thus invested is a
limited one.
III. Section 262. Procedure for summary trials.
● Sub-section (1) lays down that in all summary trials the summons-case
procedure should be followed irrespective of the nature of the case, that is,
whether it is a summons-case or a warrant-case.
● s 262.1(2) talks about Term of imprisonment
IV. Section 263. Record in summary trials.
V. Section 264. Judgment in cases tried summarily
● Substance of evidence
VI. Section 265. Language of record and judgment
● This section emphasizes that every such record i.e. the particulars mentioned
in section 263 and the substance of evidence and judgment must be recorded
in the language of the Court. It also lays down that the Magistrate concerned
must himself sign such record and judgment. The Magistrate must write his
full name and the mere putting in of the initials is not sufficient.

Similarities and differences between summary trials and other trials

○ Similarities
○ Differences
Conclusion
References

Introduction
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the law that governs procedural aspects. It provides a
mechanism for conducting trials for the offences punishable under the substantive law, i.e, Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and other criminal statutes. The word ‘trial’ has not been defined in the Code.

The stage of a trial begins after the ‘framing of charges.’ The nature of a trial is determined on the
basis of gravity and seriousness of the offence, jurisdiction and the substantive law applicable to it.
The purpose of having different procedures of trial is speedy disposal of cases and thereby reducing
the pendency of cases.

SUMMARY TRIALS [s 260] Power to try summarily.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Code— (a) any Chief Judicial Magistrate; (b) any Metropolitan Magistrate; (c) any Magistrate of the first
class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, may, if he thinks fit, try in a summary way all
or any of the following offences:— (i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; (ii) theft, under section 379, section 380 or section 381 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed 1.[two
thousand rupees]; (ii) receiving or retaining stolen property, under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), where the value of the property does not exceed 2.[two thousand rupees]; (iv) assisting in
the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
where the value of such property does not exceed 3.[two thousand rupees]; (v) offences under sections
454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (vi) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the
peace, under section 504; and 4.[criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both], under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860); (vii) abetment of any of the foregoing offences; (viii) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing
offences, when such attempt is an offence; (ix) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a
complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).
(2) When, in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Magistrate, that the nature of the case is such
that it is undesirable to try it summarily the Magistrate shall recall any witnesses who may have been
examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code

[s 260.1] CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2005 [ Clause (23) ].— Under sub-section (1) of section 260 a
Magistrate has a discretion to try offences specified therein either summarily or in a regular way. It is also
proposed to provide that the offence of theft and other cognate offences, namely, offences under sections
379, 380, 381, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code may be tried summarily where the value of the
property involved does not exceed two thousand rupees instead of two hundred rupees at present (Notes
on Clauses).
COMMENT

Summary trial implies speedy disposal. By summary case is meant a case which can be tried and
disposed of at once. Summary trial is not intended for a contentious and complicated case which
necessitates a lengthy inquiry. The object of summary trial is to have a record sufficient for the purpose of
justice but not so long as to impede speedy disposal of cases. The procedure prescribed for trial of
summons-cases should be followed (section 262). At the conclusion of the trial the Magistrate enters the
accused's plea and the finding in a form prescribed by Government. No formal charge is framed. There is
no appeal in such a trial if a sentence of fine only not exceeding two hundred rupees has been awarded.
There can be an application for revision to the High Court. [s 260.2] Scope.— In general, it will apply to
offenses not punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. It will also apply in cases of
specific offences mentioned in clauses (ii) to (ix) of sub-section (1). The Magistrates empowered to try
cases summarily are: (a) Chief Judicial Magistrate, (b) Metropolitan Magistrate, (c) Magistrate of the first
class (specially empowered by the High Court) and (d) Magistrate of the second class (specially
empowered by the High Court in a limited number of cases—See the next section). There is a provision
for summary trial under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was held that it was open to the Magistrate
to try the case as warrant case also. The trial of the case by First Class Judicial Magistrate was held to be
not illegal.5.[s 260.5] Nature of punishment [ Clause (1) ].— Offences to be tried summarily need not be
punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Offences under special or local Acts can be tried summarily if
they fulfil the condition of punishment laid down in this clause, e.g., Bengal Abkari Act.. The
imprisonment may be simple or rigorous. [s 260.6] Power where summary trial not desirable [ Sub-
section (2) ].— If the mode of trial is sought to be altered in the midstream on the ground that the offence
is such which cannot be tried in a summary way, the trial must from its inception be conducted in the
regular manner

[s 261] Summary trial by Magistrate of the second class.— The High Court may confer on any Magistrate
invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the second class power to try summarily any offence which is
punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with or without fine,
and any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offense
This section empowers the Magistrate of the second class who has been invested with the powers by the
High Court to try summarily any offence which is punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a
term not exceeding six months with or without fine. The power thus invested is a limited one.

[s 262] Procedure for summary trials.—

(1) In trials under this Chapter, the procedure specified in this Code for the trial of
summons-case shall be followed except as hereinafter mentioned.
(2) No sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be
passed in the case of any conviction under this Chapter.
The provisions of this section are imperative, and a breach thereof amounts to an illegality and not an
irregularity.15. Sub-section (1) lays down that in all summary trials the summons-case procedure should
be followed irrespective of the nature of the case, that is, whether it is a summons-case or a warrant-case.
[s 262.1] Term of imprisonment [ Sub-section (2) ].— The sub-section lays down the limit of the term of
sentence of imprisonment in summary trials. If the Magistrate considers that a longer sentence of
imprisonment is necessary in the interests of justice, the trial should be held as in a warrant-case or a
summons-case according to the nature of the offence. A sentence exceeding the period fixed by this
section is illegal.16. In a summary trial, an accused person convicted of more than one offence cannot be
sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months in the aggregate under this sub-section. A
sentence of three months' imprisonment may be inflicted on each charge to run concurrently but not
consecutively.17. The limit of imprisonment refers only to the substantive sentence, not to an alternative
sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. A Magistrate can impose a sentence of
imprisonment in default of payment of fine in addition to the maximum sentence of three months'
imprisonment which he has immposed for the offence.18. There is no limit as to the amount of fine which
may be imposed in a summary trial.19. Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, empowers
the Court to try cases for dishonour of cheques summarily in accordance with the provisions of sections
262 to 265 of the Code. It is further provided that in course of a summary trial, if it appears to the
Magistrate that the nature of the case requires passing of the sentence of imprisonment exceeding one
year, the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, may record a finding to that effect and thereafter recall any
witness and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Code

s 263] Record in summary trials.— 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.

The register containing the particulars mentioned in this section forms the record in a summary trial. The
evidence of witnesses need not be recorded, nor a formal charge framed. In every case where the accused
does not plead guilty, a judgment containing the substance of evidence is necessary (vide section 264).
Where a Magistrate, in a case tried summarily, simply initialed Where a Magistrate, in a case tried
summarily, simply initialed the judgment without affixing his full signature thereto, the omission was
held to be a mere irregularity not affecting the legality of the conviction.21. When in a summary trial, the
evidence has been recorded partly by 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.22. It is not
required that in every case where the case is sent to another Magistrate, the evidence must be re-heard. It
depends upon the particular case and the manner in which the evidence has been recorded.23.

[s 263.1] "The Magistrate shall enter".— The Magistrate must write the particulars himself. He cannot
depute that duty to his clerk, nor is he authorised to affix his signature to the record or judgment by a
stamp.24. Section 265(2), however, permits the preparation of record or judgment or both by means of an
officer appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf. The record should be made at the time of
the trial and not afterwards. Where a Magistrate without issuing process or making record of proceedings
or dismounting from a pony on which he was riding convicted the accused of a municipal offence, it was
held that as the record must have been prepared after the close of the trial from memory or rough notes,
the procedure was illegal.25.

[s 264] Judgment in cases tried summarily.— In every case tried summarily in which the accused does
not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a
brief statement of the reasons for the finding. 26. Krishna Nayar Ram Nayar v State, (1959) 61 Bom LR
684 : 1960 Cr LJ 324 : AIR 1960 Bom 107 . 27. Ainuddi Sheikh v Queen-Empress, (1900) 27 Cal 450 .
28. Empress of India v Karan Singh, (1875) 1 All 680 . 29. Emperor v Nurudin Sheikh Adam, (1928) ILR
30 Bom LR 954 : AIR 1928 Bom 433 . 30. Queen v Kheraj Mullah, (1873) 11 Beng LR 33 : 20 WR (Cr)
13. This section 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 reasons for coming to a particular finding. [s 264.1] "Substance of the
evidence".— The substance of the evidence is to be recorded at the time when the evidence is given in
Court. Therefore, where the substance of the evidence is embodied in a judgment from memory or from
short notes made at the time when evidence was given it does not amount to compliance with this section.
The important or substantial part of the deposition of each witness should be recorded by the presiding
authority.26. The evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrate's order.27. It must be so set forth in
the judgment as to enable the appellate Court to perform its function. The Allahabad High Court has held
that if the evidence is not so set forth, the Magistrate may be required to do so even after re-examining the
witnesses, or a re-trial may be ordered.28. The Bombay29. and the Calcutta30. High Courts have held that
the omission to comply with the provisions of this section vitiates the trial.

[s 265] Language of record and judgment.— (1) Every such record and judgment shall be written in the
language of the Court. (2) The High Court may authorise any Magistrate empowered to try offences
summarily to prepare the aforesaid record or judgment or both by means of an officer appointed in this
behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the record or judgment so prepared shall be signed by such
Magistrate

This section emphasises that every such record i.e. the particulars mentioned in section 263 and the
substance of evidence and judgment must be recorded in the language of the Court. It also lays down that
the Magistrate concerned must himself sign such record and judgment. The Magistrate must write his full
name and the mere putting in of the initials is not sufficient.

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.

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.

Conclusion
In India, there are two twin-laws which govern the criminal procedure followed in the country. The
substantive law is covered by the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with other criminal acts and the
procedural law is covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The primary aim of any criminal justice system is to ensure that the citizens have the opportunity for
a free and fair trial. It is well known that the pendency of cases is extremely high in India and the
judiciary is overburdened. Trials take years to complete which is a continuous and tedious process.
Therefore, it has been divided into three categories according to the gravity of the offences. Summary
trials offer an opportunity to the citizens to get justice even for the smallest issues that they face. It
maintains a balance by providing justice and not overburdening the higher court with petty offences.

References
1. http://lawtimesjournal.in/summary-trials/#_ftn7
2. https://crlreview.in/summary-trials-under-crpc/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/summary-trial-code-criminal-procedure-1973/
#:~:text=Summary%20Trials%20are%20mentioned%20in,small%2Fpetty
%20category%20are%20tried.
4. CrPC- Ratan & Dheeraj Lal
5. CrPC Rahul IAS.