Introduction:
Criminal Procedure Code is considered a procedural law that is used for directing the criminal trials in India. The procedure includes the examination of a witness, buildup of evidence, cross-examination of accused, etc. Before we analyze a magisterial trial, we should know that who is the magistrate. A magistrate is considered as a public officer or civil officer who directs the law. When we analyze the magisterial trial, we can find that three types of cases can be tried by the magistrate, like • Warrant Cases trial, • Summary cases trial, and • Summons cases trial. So, in this research paper, I am going to discuss that what is the role of a magistrate in a criminal trial, and by which process a magisterial trial is conducted and what are the type of cases that can be tried by the magistrate.
Warrant Cases Magisterial Trial
A warrant case relates to an offense that is committed by a person for which punishment is given is above the two-year death penalty and life imprisonment. All the trials of the warrant cases (except those before sessions) are triable by a magistrate for all the serious offenses. The trial is conducted by a public prosecutor under section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code.[1] Prosecutor begins by explaining the charges and the evidence which are proposed to prove the guiltiness of the accused under section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code.[2]
In these types of cases, the trial starts by filing the FIR, i.e., First Information Report, or by the complaint presented to the magistrate. When we see the difference between the summon case and the warrant case, we can find that there is a difference in the procedure of trial. When we analyze the Criminal Procedure Code, we can find that Section 238 to 250 of the CrPc deals with the trial of warrant cases by the magistrate.
Initial Steps for trial by filling the First Information Report (FIR), and after the FIR is filed, then an investigation should be conducted by the police for getting the relevant information related to the case.[3] And after the investigation, the charge sheet is filed, and the case is forwarded to the magistrate. After this, under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code magistrate has the power to discharge the accused if charges against the accused are baseless.[4] Like in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, the court held that the Judge, while in view of the question of framing the charges under section 227of the Code, has the absolute power to weigh and shift the evidence for the partial purpose of discovery out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.[5]
Framing of Charges is considered as a main duty of the court. The magistrate can frame the charges after the contemplation of the matter and explaining the accused about the charge. The main object of investigative the accused at the early stage is to afford a chance to him to explain any condition appearing against him. However, the examination of the accused is not authoritative. Like in the case of Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satadekar, the court held that upon the thought of all documents and other situations, the magistrate comes to the assumption that the accusation is without any substance then he may discharge the accused even without examining him.[6]
Now section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code mention the magistrate’s power to fixing the date under which date the witness can be examined.[7] After the examination of the witness now comes the evidence of the defense in this defense has the power to bring the documentary as well as oral evidence. After the evidence, the next step comes of oral argument before the court, which mentions the power of the parties in submitting the memorandum argument. After this, finally, a warrant trial will end after the acquittal or conviction of the accused.
Magisterial Trial in Summon Cases
Any case is considered as a summon case, which has a punishment of fewer than two years for the convicted offense. When we analyze the trial for the summon case, we can find that section 251 to section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the summons cases. These are the cases that are considered less formal as compared to the warrant cases. When we see section 251, we can find that under the summon cases, it is not compulsory to frame charges under this. In this section, the court has the power to ask the accused whether he wants to plead guilty.[8]
And section 252 and section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the conviction at the time of plea of guilty. If the guilty are plead by the accused, then the magistrate shall store the plea as in the word of the accused, and the magistrate at his discretion can convict him.[9] Now section 254 deals with the course of action, which should be followed when the person has not been convicted under section 252 and section 253. Suppose he thinks eligible by seeing the request of the accused or the prosecution. In that case, the magistrate may issue a summons to any person who is a witness guiding him to appear or to submit any document or other thing.
The judge has the power to hear the accused and collect all the evidence. And he also has the power to issue the notice of the evidence under section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the accused does not come at a fixed date in the court, then it will provide the right to the court to vindicate the complainant unless there is an option to the court that they can dismiss the case on any other day.[10]
Summary Trial
Usually, a judicial trial conducted by a magistrate is a lengthy procedure. Opposite to it, a summary trial where a case in front of a magistrate is held and concluded speedily, and recording of the trial in a summary way. In summary, the trial only minor offenses have been concluded to be magistrate, complicated, and the serious case is concluded through a warrant or non-warranty trials.[11]
In a summary trial, a magistrate does not frame a formal charges sheet, which is an integral part of the warrant and non-warranty trials against the accused.
The main objective of the summary trial is to reduce the overburden on the judiciary. The trial under summary trial upheld on the Latin maxim “In Diem Vivere in ledge sunt detestable”, which means Justice delays is Justice denied.
As per section 261[12] and 262[13] Of the Criminal Procedure Code, a magistrate of the first and second class may try the cases in a summary trial in the following situation- the punishment of the offense is a maximum of two years. the amount of stolen for theft as per section 379, 380 & 381 of India Penal Code, is not more than Rs2000, Trespass, Lurking, as per the section 454 of IPC, Criminal Insult and Intimidation with intention as per the section 504 and 506 of IPC.
In the case “D.M Seth v. Ganeshnarayan R. Podar” the Bombay high court held that magistrate might grant an order against the accuser for compensation to the accused if the court does not find any reasonable ground for making an accusation.[14] Such order may grant by the magistrate after the magistrate looks up the accuser and pass the notice of show cause notice for such groundless accusation.[15]
The accused pleads not guilty only contain certain procedural material, which is mentioned in section 264[16] Of Criminal Procedure Code, the substance of evidence produced before the court and a brief statement containing the reason why such finding has reached before the magistrate.
The maximum punishment under the summary trial after conviction of the accused does not exceed 3 months of imprisonment, which may include a fine.
Conclusion
When we analyze the above research paper, we can conclude that there is an adequate amount of forces that are vested in the judge for checking the police abundance, documenting the police report, doing a sharp test for revealing the truth, and checking the different phases of the examination. Court also decides whether a proceeding is started under the discretion of the magistrate. And we had also seen that magistrate has the power to give the judgment after listening to both sides and analyzing the fact and then giving the judgment. And if the accused is convicted, then both parties are given the opportunity to present the argument, But has the power over the final result for the punishment.
[1] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 225.
[2] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 226.
[3] Mariya Paliwala, Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, December 24, 2019, available at the blog.ipleaders.in/trial-of-warrant-cases-by-magistrates/.
[4] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 239.
[5] Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1986 SC 2045.
[6] Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satadekar, 2008 SAR (Criminal) 978.
[7] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 242.
[8] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 251.
[9] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 252.
[10] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 256.
[11] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 260.
[12] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 261.
[13] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 262.
[14] D.M Seth v. Ganeshnarayan R, Podar, Cri LJ 1899(Bom), 1993.
[15] Id.
[16]The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 264.
0 Comments