The Criminal Justice System is the process by which offenders are arrested, followed by

Stages of investigation to determine proof. After which charges are framed, a defense is
raised, trials conducted and sentencing rendered if found guilty or acquitted if he is found
innocent.

Criminal offenses are usually investigated by researching the facts and or incidents,
situations, scenarios, to prove the guilt of the individual. A thorough investigation is carried
out systematically, keeping time to time details, analyzing and scrutinizing information to
arrive at a conclusion to prosecute the individual committing the criminal offense. The
charges framed against the individual are determined by the collected pieces of evidence,
and defense is made to oppose or object the prosecution of the criminal offense.

The trial is a judicial examination of the issues between the parties, whether they are of law
or facts, presented in court before a jury or judge. In order to determine guilt in the criminal
proceedings, pieces of evidence are examined by the judge. Judge takes into consideration
the law of the land, the facts presented before him, or the law put in the case for the
purpose of determining the outcome.

Types of Criminal justice system:

Across the world, there are many different types of the criminal justice system to keep and
maintain order and peace within their area of jurisdiction creating a social code of conduct,
the law. Punishments differ from being a punitive one or a rehabilitative nature.

There are two main justice systems:

1. Adversary system or Accusatory system

2. Inquisitorial system

According to Black's Law Dictionary,

Adversary system is the court system where a judge decides on a case argued by a
prosecutor who is suing the plaintiff and the defense attorney who defends their plaintiff. A
jury has also been used to decide such cases.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the inquisitorial system is:

proof taking used in civil law, whereby the judge conducts the trial, determines what
questions to ask, and defines the scope and extent of the inquiry.

1. Adversary system:In the ADVERSARY SYSTEM, two or more opposing parties gather
evidence and present the evidence, and their arguments, to a judge or jury. The
judge or jury knows nothing of the litigation until the parties present their cases to
the decision maker. The defendant in a criminal trial is not required to testify. The
adversarial system seeks the truth by pitting the parties against each other in the
hope that competition will reveal it.

2. Inquisitorial system:In the inquisitorial system, the presiding judge is not a passive
recipient of information. Rather, the presiding judge is primarily responsible for
 supervising the gathering of the evidence necessary to resolve the case. He or she
actively steers the search for evidence and questions the witnesses, including the
respondent or defendant. Attorneys play a more passive role, suggesting routes of
inquiry for the presiding judge and following the judge's questioning with
questioning of their own. Attorney questioning is often brief because the judge tries
to ask all relevant questions. The inquisitorial system places the rights of the accused
secondary to the search for truth.

Process of Criminal Trial in England:

The inquisitorial system was first developed by the Catholic Church during the medieval
period. The ecclesiastical courts in thirteenth-century England adopted the method of
adjudication by requiring witnesses and defendants to take an inquisitorial oath
administered by the judge, who then questioned the witnesses. In an inquisitorial oath, the
witness swore to truthfully answer all questions asked of him or her.
The system flourished in England into the sixteenth century, when it became infamous for
its use in the Court of the STAR CHAMBER, a court reserved for complex, contested cases.
Under the reign of King Henry VIII, the power of the Star Chamber was expanded, and the
court used torture to compel the taking of the inquisitorial oath. The Star Chamber was
eventually eliminated as repugnant to basic liberty, and England gradually moved toward an
adversarial system.
After the French Revolution, a more refined version of the inquisitorial system developed in
France and Germany. From there it spread to the rest of continental Europe and to many
African, South American, and Asian countries. The inquisitorial system is now more widely
used than the adversarial system.
The inquisitorial system followed specially in civil law countries like France, Germany, New
zealand, Italy and Austria and the countries like United Kingdom, United State of America,
India and other common law countries followed the adversarial criminal justice system.

Process of Criminal Trial in India:

India has a well-established statutory, administrative and judicial framework for criminal
trials.
Indian Penal laws are primarily governed by 3 Acts:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.);

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC);
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

The common features of the trials in all three of the aforementioned

procedures may be broke into the following stages:
1. Framing of charge or giving of notice:
It's the beginning stage of the trial, when a case comes in the court, court discloses
grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, and the
court frames the charge and proceeds with the trial.
2. Recording of prosecution evidence:
when the framing of the charges is done, statements of witnesses are taken then
they are examined. This is called examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
 3. Statement of accused:
the accused is given a reasonable opportunity to explain incriminating facts and
circumstances in the case.
4. Defense evidence:
If the accused want he can produce and these will be cross examined by the
prosecution. There is no need of it because the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution.
5. Final arguments:
This is the final stage of the trial. The prosecutor shall sum up the prosecution case
and the accused is entitled to reply.
6. Judgment:
After the conclusion of arguments by the prosecutor and defense, the judge gives his
judgment in the trial.

Process of Criminal Trial in France:

Main principles of criminal law in France are as follows:

 According to French law, the presumption of innocence is there, a person accused of

a crime is innocent until found guilty by a judge. As a result, an accused can be
deprived of liberty during legal proceedings only if certain conditions are met.
Generally, all suspects are released; detention is done only in exceptional cases.

 In the trial, the guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecuting
Attorney. At this stage, any testimony you are asked to provide may be crucial.

 Court proceedings usually take place in public. In certain cases involving sexual
offences, the judge may decide to proceed in absence of the public.

 The accused is not bound to testify in his or her own defense, or to call witnesses.

The various steps in criminal trial in France are as follows:

 1. Arraignment: At the arraignment, the charges are read out to the defendant, who
pleads guilty or not guilty before the judge. If the accused pleads guilty, the judge will
either hand down a sentence in accordance with the rules governing sentencing. If
the accused pleads not guilty then the judges decide the date for next stage e.g. The
release hearing (also called bail hearing) or disclosure or preliminary inquiry or trial.

2. Release (bail) hearing: The person who is in custody at the time of arraignment must
be released on some conditions until objected by the prosecution attorney. And the
object should be satisfied. If the accused fails to comply with the conditions, new
charges may be imposed.

3. Before Trial: Before trial, a preliminary investigation conducted by a pre-trial judge is

a routine part of the judicial process. It transfers the case to the highly competent
court on the basis of a reasonable estimation of what the accused criminals may be
convicted of in the future. The criminal procedure in France requires early
intervention by examining magistrate. Once the investigation has begun, the
magistrate is free to investigate any violations related to the application and may
proceed to further inquiry any person who may be involved. If the pre-trial judge
determines that the case should be prosecuted, the judge will make an order for
transfer.

4. Preliminary inquiry and trial: If the sufficient evidence to take the case to the court
is found then only the trial starts. First, determining whether there is enough
evidence to issue a trial and second, proving that the guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, in both cases, the Prosecuting Attorney and the counsel for the defense call
and question witnesses, including the victim or victims, and present evidence with
arguments in support of their respective cases. If the evidence is found to be
insufficient at the preliminary inquiry, the charges against the accused will be
dropped, whereas if the evidence is found to be insufficient at the trial, the accused
will be acquitted. And the judge met is given.

5. Sentencing: If the accused is found guilty judges may award sentence or ask for the
pre-sentencing report. This report should be prepared by the parole officer in which
the conduct of the accused in the society will be dealt and the victim may be
concerned to know the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Criticism of Adversarial system:

1. In this system, the lawyer has the duty to act zealously and faithfully for his client.
Zealous, faithful advocacy means the obligation to search out all favourable
evidence, to seek, neutralize or destroy all unfavourable evidence, and to press the
most favourable interpretation of the law for his client.
2. Sometimes protection of individual rights and a presumption of innocence and
benefit of doubt leads to the release of a criminal.
3. Evidences are presented by parties, sometimes parties intentionally take a too long
time to present them.
4. The decision maker will hear only the evidences which the parties want to present
because evidence gathering and presentation is fully controlled by parties.
 5. Parties may bring fake witnesses to distort the truth.
6. Rules require advocacy and client loyalty which undermines the search for truth.
7. The police sometime may not be able to find sufficient evidence against the accused.
He cannot expect any help from the accused. This leads to dropping-out of the case.

Criticism of inquisitorial system:

1. Examining magistrate and judge both are having unchecked power to investigate
and adjudicate the case.
2. When court participates in the interrogation it may lead to a biased attitude.
3. Privacy of the accused is denied.
4. Prosecutor and police exceed or misuse their power because both are having
separate law to deal with their conduct.
5. Parties are not able to call own expert.

Conclusion:
If the matter is only to decide a case in favor of either of the parties, it is not a big deal at all
but there is a proper procedure established step by step to reach the common objective
which is a punishment to the offender and relief to the victim and ensure a fair trial. Both
the systems have their own procedure, advantages and disadvantages also. Adversarial and
inquisitorial both are criticized, the reliability of the judgments is challenged but still, it is
prevailing.
In adversarial system accused and state are the parties in a criminal case whereas in the
inquisitorial victim is also a party, I think this feature of the adversarial system is good. Basic
principles of adversary system like the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is good, because when a person is accused of committing any offence, he
is mere an accused not an offender or criminal, he should have rights which are denied in
an inquisitorial system. Having own critics and features, both the systems have the same
objective.