“TRIAL BEFORE A SESSIONS COURT”

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE TITLED

CRIMINAL LAW-II FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE OF B.B.A LL.B (Hons.)

PROJECT PROPOSED BY:

NAME: VISHWAN UPADHYAY

ROLL NO.: 1864

SEMESTER: 4TH

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F.

ASSISSTANT PROFESSOR of LAW

FEBRUARY, 2019

CHANAKAYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA- 800001

1|Page
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A., LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “Trial
Before a sessions court” submitted at Chanakya National Law University is an authentic record of
my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F.

I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible
for the contents of my Project Report.

SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE

NAME OF CANDIDATE: VISHWAN UPADHYAY

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A project is a joint endeavour which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence and
with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one’s soul to kindness or help generously
rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty. I am overwhelmed in all humbleness
and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have helped me to
put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete effectively and
moreover on time.

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F whose guidance helped me a lot with
structuring my project. I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped
me immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed
it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

NAME: Vishwan Upadhyay

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

ROLL NO: 1864

SEMESTER: 4TH

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the available resources at library of the Chanakya National Law University and
also the internet sources.

 Aims and Objectives

The aim of the project is to present an overview of various aspects of Trial before Court of Session
through cases, decisions and suggestions and different writings and articles

 Scope and Limitations

Though the study of the trial before Court of Session is an immense project and pages can be
written over the topic but due to certain restrictions and limitations the researcher has not been
able to deal with the topic in great detail.

 Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Cases
2. Books
3. Journals
 Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

 Mode of Citation

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research
paper.

4|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Trial of Warrant Cases: An introduction

a. What is a trial?

b. Scheme of Criminal Law

c. Object of criminal trial

2. About sessions court and procedure of trial in sessions court

3. Provisions relating to sessions court

4. Conclusion

5. Bibliography

TRIAL OF WARRANT CASES: AN INTRODUCTION

5|Page
One of the fruitful things given to India by Britain during her reign was the laws of the British to
India during her was the laws of the British legal system especially the concept of criminal justice
system and its related legislations. Our Indian Penal code, Evidence Act and Civil procedure Code
are the products of the British legislators, which underwent only minor changes even after the
Independence till now. Likewise, the Criminal Procedure Code was also introduced by the British,
laid a concrete foundation for the present Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the
procedure to be followed by various courts in any criminal proceedings. In addition to it, the act
also imposes duties on the police officers who are a part of the criminal justice system in India.

The criminal procedure code provides different types of trial to provide possible means in order to
reach the ends of justice in an adversarial system. The classification of trial solely depends upon
gravity of the offences, namely,

 Trial before sessions court.

 Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
 Trial of summons cases by Magistrates.
 Summary trials.

The first two kinds of trials are designated for warrant cases and the last two for summons cases
which shows the intention of the law makers to sub divide the warrant cases and summons cases
into two categories for devising suitable trial procedures1.

A warrant case for the purpose of this Act, is a case relating to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years2 and the petty cases would
come under summons cases. Cases tried before a court of session are all warrant cases defamation
cases under s.237. Those cases will be tried by the magistrates as given under column 6 of First

1
Pillai K.N.Chnadrasekhran, R.V. Kelkar’s Lecture on Criminal Procedure, 174(5 th edition, 2013), Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow
2
S.2(x) of CrPC, 1973

6|Page
Schedule and these procedures are comparatively elaborate owing to its nature of gravity and
seriousness.

These warrant cases under s. 238 to 250 are further divided into two main categories depending
on the nature of the complaint. S.238 to 243 deals with the provisions relating to the trial of warrant
cases instituted through police report and s. 244 to 247 deals with other types like that of a private
complaint. The last part of this cluster, say from s.248 to s.250 deals with the procedures for
conclusion of trial that remains common to both the categories. This kind of classification was not
present in the Code of 1898, and was then amended by 1955, inserting two provisions s. 251 and
251A for the older s.251, which was later adopted in 1973 enactment.

 WHAT IS A TRIAL?

There are three stages of criminal cases; investigation, inquiry and trial. The first stage is
investigation and is reached when the police officer either by himself or under orders of magistrate
investigates into a case. When an information of a cognizable offence is received or cognizable
offence is suspected, a police officer in charge of a police station investigate into the matter. If the
information relates to non-cognizable offence, the police officer can investigate only after the order
of a magistrate.

The second stage is enquiry or trial. If the magistrate is of the opinion that the case is triable by
him and also he is competent to impose adequate sentence on the accused, he may himself deal
with the case and may discharge or acquit or convict the accused. If he is of the opinion that the
offence is serious one and exclusively triable by session’s court, he shall commit the case to the
court of sessions. Such committal is made only on the basis of inquiry conducted by him finds that
a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. They are known as Committal
proceedings.

The third and final stage of criminal proceeding is trial. Once investigation and inquiry ends the
trial begins, which ends in acquittal or in conviction.

7|Page
Though the term “trial” is not defined in the code. The term “trial’’ is defined in various
dictionaries according to them
“A formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in an adversary
proceeding.”

“Hearing of cause civil or criminal before a judge who has jurisdiction over it, according to the
law of land. Trial is to find out by due examination the truth of the point in issue or question
between the parties whereupon judgement may be given.”
Black’s law dictionary

 SCHEME OF CRIMINAL LAW

Depending on the gravity of the offences and the punishment prescribed therefor, criminal trial
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) has been classified into two viz.,
magisterial trial and Sessions trial. The first schedule to the Cr.P.C. is divided into two parts
namely, Part I and Part II. Column I of the first part of the first schedule enumerates the list of
offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Column 6 thereof indicates the court by
which those offences are triable. Those courts are either the Magistrate’s courts or the courts of
Session. The second part of the first schedule deals with offences punishable under other laws. In
the absence of any specific provision under such other laws regarding investigation, inquiry or
trial, the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for the same shall be applicable by virtue of
Sec.4(2) of Cr.P.C. If under the special law the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for more than 7 years, then by virtue of the second part of the first schedule to
Cr.P.C. the offence shall be triable by a Court of Session.

Court of Session has been defined in section 9 of the CrPC. It has the power to establish the Court
of Session, which is vested with the state government and the high court has the power to appoint
the session judges and to direct at what places such court shall hold its sittings. There shall be a
court of session for every session’s division in the state though it may be managed by several
judges.

8|Page
The High court may also appoint additional session judge and assistant sessions judges to exercise
jurisdiction in a court of session and their judgements and order would be those of the court of
sessions.

Sec 10 of Cr.P.C provides for the distribution of work by session judge to various assistant sessions
judge. Thus issuance of general order by the session’s judge was held to be valid and permissible3.
He also has the power to assign any request application for disposal by an additional session judge
in case of his absence or inability to act4.

 OBJECT OF CRIMINAL TRIAL

Criminal trial is meant for doing justice not only to the victim but also to the accused and the
Society at large5. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The
primary object of criminal trial is to ensure fair trial which is guaranteed under Art.21 of the
Constitution of India. A fair trial has, therefore, two objects in view. It must be fair to the accused
and must also be fair to the prosecution. The trial must be judged from this dual point of view6. It
is, therefore, necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to
see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the judge has to perform.
The object of criminal trial is thus to render public justice by punishing the criminal. It is also
important to remember that the trial should be concluded expeditiously before the memory of the
witnesses fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witnesses or to win over
the witnesses by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice
can be ensured to the satisfaction of all concerned only when trial is conducted expeditiously7.

The public interest demands that criminal justice is swift and sure, that the guilty is punished while
events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent is absolved as early as is consistent

3
S.N Bajpaie v State of U.P, 1990 Cri.L.J 1486(U.P)
4
State of M.P v Charandas Devangan, 1992Cri.L.J 711(M.P)
5
Ambika Pd. V. State (Delhi Administration)-2000 SCC Crl.522
6
T .H.Hussain V. M.P.Modkakar-AIR 1958 SC 376
7
VideKrishnan V. Krishnaveni-1997 SCC Crl.544 = AIR 1997 SC 987

9|Page
with a fair and impartial trial8. If unmerited acquittals become the general rule, they tend to lead
to a cynical disregard of the law. A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty
no less than from the conviction of the innocent9.

In getting the true fruits of the real object of criminal trial, it must always be kept in view that a
criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and
fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty
of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay
of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of
probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. Every case in the final analysis
would have to depend upon its own facts10. The Apex court had taken judicial notice of certain
distressing and unethical tendencies in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab- wherein it has been
observed as follows11:
 “It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other
till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only that a witness is threatened; he is abducted;
he is maimed; he is done away with; or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In
adjourning the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to
miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not treated with respect in the Court. He is pushed
out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for the whole day and then he finds
that the matter is adjourned. He has no place to sit and no place even to have a glass of
water. And when he does appear in Court, he is subjected to unchecked and prolonged
examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. For all these
reasons and others a person abhors becoming a witness. It is the administration of justice
that suffers. The appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Here again the process
of harassment starts and he decides not to get the diet money at all. High Courts have to be
vigilant in these matters. Proper diet money must be paid immediately to the witness (not

8
M.S.Sherif v. State of Madras- 1954 Crl.L.J.1019
9
Vide Gangadhar Behera V. State of Orissa- 2000 (3) Crl.L.J.41 SC and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra- AIR 1988 SC 1998
10
State Punjab v. Jagir Singh – AIR 1973 SC 2407.
11
AIR 2000 SC 2017

10 | P a g e
 only when he is examined but for every adjourned hearing) and even sent to him and he
should not be left to be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal justice system is
to be put on a proper pedestal, the system cannot be left in the hands of unscrupulous
lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. Each trial should be properly monitored. Time
has come that all the courts, district courts, subordinate courts are linked to the High Court
with a computer and a proper check is made on the adjournments and recordings”

The sole aim of the law is approximation of justice. A Judge is looked upon as an embodiment of
justice. Assurance of fair trial is the first imperative in the dispensation of justice. It cannot be
denied that one of the most valuable rights of our citizens is to get a fair trial free from an
atmosphere of prejudice. This right flows necessarily from Art.21 of the Constitution of India
which makes it obligatory upon the State not to deprive any person of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law.12

One of the components of fair procedure in the administration of criminal justice is that the accused
has the opportunity of making his defence by a legal practitioner of his choice. This is his
constitutional right guaranteed under Art.22 of the Constitution. In order to give effect to this
constitutional right it has been embodied in the directive principles of State policy as provided
under Art.39 A of the Constitution of India that the State shall secure equal justice and free legal
aid by a suitable legislation or scheme or any other way to ensure that the opportunities for securing
justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. That right has also
been statutorily accepted and incorporated in Sec. 303 Cr.P.C. which provides that any person
accused of an offence before a criminal court or against whom proceedings are initiated.

Under the Cr.P.C., one has a right to be defended by the pleader of his/her choice. The directive
under Article 39 A of the Constitution has been translated into reality by the enactment of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

SESSIONS COURT AND PROCEDURE OF TRIAL

12
Smt.Menaka Sanjay Gandhi v. Miss.Rani Jethmalani- 1979 S.C.468

11 | P a g e
District court is referred to as sessions court when it exercises its jurisdiction on criminal matters
under Code of Criminal procedure (CrPc). As per section 9 of CrPc, the court is established by the
State Government for every session’s division. The court is presided over by a Judge, appointed
by the High Court of that particular state. The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions
Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges in this court13.

In Indian cities, the Sessions Court is responsible for adjudicating matters related to criminal cases.
The court is responsible for cases relating to murders, theft, dacoity, pick-pocketing and other such
cases. Sessions court has the power to impose the full range of penalties for criminal acts, including
the death penalty14.

Originally, the Sessions Courts heard each case continuously in sessions and delivered judgements
immediately on completion of arguments. Hence the name 'Sessions Court' meant that the cases
would be disposed off expeditiously. One of the important reasons for delays in the Indian Judicial
System, is that the concept of 'Sessions' is observed only in breach due to repeated adjournments,
loop holes in the case papers and backlog of cases. The Government of India has not found a
solution to this endemic problem.

PROCEDURE OF TRIAL:

 INITIAL STAGE OF TRIAL:-

All the process can be explained simply by an example. Imagine a courtroom with prosecution
[being a public prosecutor (Sec. 225)] on one and defense (represented by one the accused chooses
or the court appoints) on the other side. It is the duty of the court to provide accused with all the
necessary copies of documents for their perusal.

13
Cr.P.C, Section 9
14
"District Courts". Indiancourts.nic.in.

12 | P a g e
Since prosecution is the one accusing, (when the case in pursuance to Sec.209 is brought), he is
the one who will be initiating the case proceeding with the pieces of evidence to prove the guilt of
accused while describing the charges against him (Sec.226). This is mere to determine whether the
trial is to be affected or not. One thing to note here is that prosecution is not under any duty to
make the accused be present and hence his absence will not lead to his acquittal15. It is the duty of
the court to secure it.

If after this, the judge considers that there is no case against the accused by prosecution, he will
discharge the accused vide Sec.227 of CrPC (this clause merely ensures that a person is not
harassed with a prolonged, unnecessary trial16) giving reasons (to aid the superior court in case of
appeal in determining the correctness and sufficiency of reasons for acquittal). The Hon`ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal17, has enumerated 4
principles to be kept in mind when the accused is to be discharged u/s 227, the gist of which is a
prima facie case should be made against the accused the test of which will vary from case to case.

But if the presumption of the commission of offense arises then there are 2 scenarios vide
Sec. 228:

If that Court of Session can exclusively try the matter at hand, charges in writing by the court shall
be framed [228(1)(b)].

If the Court of Session cannot exclusively hold the trial, meaning thereby another court has the
jurisdiction to try this case at hand, then session court shall transfer the case to the appropriate
CJM or JM of First Class [228(1)(a)].

U/s 228, another important point to note is that if charges are framed as above given, they are to
be explained to the accused in the language and manner he will understand (though a violation of

15
State of Gujarat v. Nareshbhai Haribhai Tandel, 1997 CriLj 2783(Guj.)
16
Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, 1981 SCC (Cri) 438.
17
(1979) 3 SCC 699

13 | P a g e
it will not vitiate the further proceedings.) Then, the accused will be asked if he pleads guilty to
the offenses he is charged with or not [(228(2))].

The Stage at Sec.227 and 228 plus the presumption so as to lead to framing of charge(s) as
mentioned above can be the result of even a strong suspicion since court possesses a very wide
discretion to determine sufficiency of grounds available i.e. whether they are so as to require the
framing of charge(s)[5].

Sec.228 (1) and Sec.227 ensure that no frivolous accusation is made or that no trial takes place
without any material. Sec.227 and 228 are inter-related since the principles that are to be followed
u/s 227 to discharge an accused can also be made applicable to the framing of charges. In case of
the framing of charges, reasons for doing so need not be given. They are to be explained though,
still if not, this won`t necessarily vitiate the trial.

 THE SECOND STAGE OF TRIAL:-

U/s 229, an accused can plead guilty of an offense either himself or if allowed to appear by a
pleader, then through him, in unambiguous terms. He can be convicted based on it except in cases
where the offense in question is punishable by death or life imprisonment where there is a form of
reluctance to convict based on such plea18. If a conviction is done, then any right of appeal against
such conviction stands curtailed19. For conviction on the basis of such plea, it is held by the
Hon`ble Supreme Court to be essential that the accused be confronted with the substance of
allegations against him.

18
Hasruddin Mohommad v. Emperor, (1929) 30 CriLj 508
19
Sec. 375 of CrPC

14 | P a g e
If no such pleading or conviction u/s 229 is made/done, the court vide Sec.230 shall fix a date for
examination of witnesses or may compel the attendance of any witness or production of any
documents the prosecution may need.

U/s 231, the court is to take all evidence produced and allow any cross-examination as mentioned
in its clause (2).

 THIRD STAGE OF TRIAL:-

U/s 232, the court may acquit the accused if no evidence/legal proof indicating his involvement in
the said offense appears/presented.

If no acquittal, then u/s 233, accused presents his case, May in writing or otherwise, can produce
evidence, witness just like the prosecution. However, this can be denied if it appears that they are
being presented only to cause inordinate delay etc. Hence, non-compliance with this section does
not necessarily vitiate the proceeding. Sec.315 considers an accused to be a competent witness as
well.

Sec. 234 and 314 both deal with who shall give the closing arguments. Being a specific provision,
234 prevails if any conflict arises hence if Sec. 314 applies, defense gives the closing argument
but if 234 does, the prosecution sums up, defense replies after him.

After conviction, u/s 235, the accused shall be heard with regard to the sentence etc.(as given from
Sec. 353-365) and then will be sentenced unless Sec. 360 of CrPC[9] applies. This gives the
accused a right of pre-sentence hearing which will at the most have a bearing on the choice of
sentence[10] but has to be followed in letter and spirit otherwise it is a violation of natural justice.

15 | P a g e
U/s 236, in case of a previous convict, the court may call for evidence on that matter and record
finding. This helps in case the accused is liable to enhanced punishment.

Lastly, Sec. 237 deals with procedure in cases of defamation of high dignitaries and public servants
to prevent vindication of the conduct of such officials. However, provision for compensation to
the accused to prevent false accusation is made as well.

16 | P a g e
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS AS TO SESSIONS TRIAL

Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. starting with Sec.225 and ending with section 237 deals with provisions
governing the trial before a Court of Session. Sec.225 Cr.P.C. enjoins that in every trial before a
Court of Session the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. Sec.193 Cr.P.C.
provides that except as otherwise expressly provided by the Cr.P.C. or any other law, no Court of
Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has
been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. There are statutes like the N.D.P.S.Act,
1985, wherein it is provided that the special court manned by a Sessions Judge shall take
cognizance of an offence under the Act without the case being committed to it. In such cases it
may be permissible for the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the offence without a committal
of the case by the Magistrate concerned. But there are other enactments such as the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 which are silent regarding
commitment. Trial under those statutes is also to be conducted by a Court of Session. In Gangula
Ashok v. State of A.P. – 2000(1) KLT 609 the Supreme Court of India held that the mandate under
Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. is applicable to the special courts manned by Sessions Judges trying offences
under the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and that those courts cannot take cognizance
of the offences under the said Act without the case being committed to them by the Magistrates
concerned. When the accused appears or is brought before court pursuant to the commitment of
the case, the Public Prosecutor should open the case by describing the charge brought against the
accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. After
considering the record of the case and the documents submitted along with such record and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the judge considers that there are
no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused giving
reasons for doing so. If, however, the judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed the offence he may frame the charge against the accused in writing.
At this stage the Sessions Judge is entitled to consider only the documents produced by the
prosecution along with the charge sheet. The accused is not entitled to produce or cause production
of any document at this stage for the consideration of the Sessions Judge. The charges shall be
read over to the accused and explained to him and he shall be asked as to whether he pleads guilty

17 | P a g e
of the offence charged or whether he claims to be tried for the charge. If the judge is of opinion
that notwithstanding the conclusions of the police, the offence that is actually made out is not one
exclusively triable by a court of Sessions then he shall frame a charge against the accused and
transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case as if it were a
warrant case instituted on a police report. Even though Sec.229 Cr.P.C. gives discretion to the
judge to convict the accused, in case he pleads guilty, the charge in a session’s case being for grave
offences, it is desirable that the accused is not straightaway convicted. The proper course would
be to call upon the prosecution to prove its case by adducing evidence. Where the accused does
not plead guilty the court shall call upon the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of its case.
Evidence for the prosecution shall be taken on a day-to-day basis. After the conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, the accused is to be examined under Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. After
the examination of the accused the court has to post the case for hearing under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. If
after hearing the prosecution and the defense the judge considers that there is no evidence to
indicate that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged the judge can record an
order of acquittal under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. This is a very vital stage of the session’s trial and
observance of Sec.232 Cr.P.C. and Sec. 233 Cr.P.C. at the appropriate stage is mandatory.20

After hearing under Sec.232 if the accused is not acquitted there under, the accused shall be called
upon to enter on his defense and to adduce any evidence which he might have in support thereof.
After the conclusion of the defense evidence, if any, the case has to be taken up for arguments.
After hearing the arguments, the court has to pass the judgment in accordance with Secs.353 and
354 Cr.P.C. If the judgment is one of conviction and the judge does not proceed to invoke the
benevolent provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, he shall hear the accused on the
question of sentence and then pass a sentence in accordance with law. This in short is the procedure
to be followed in the ordinary murder trials before a Court of Session.

20
1992(2)KLT 227 – Sivamani v. State of Kerala

18 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The researcher would like to conclude by saying that trial is one of the most important step in
criminal proceeding. There are various types of trial but in the cases of warrant case there are two
types of trial is prescribed

1) Trial by magistrate
2) Trial by Court of session

Depending upon the quantum of punishment which is given in section 28 of the Cr.P.C, some cases
whose punishment is Capital punishment, Life Imprisonment, Imprisonment for more than 7 years
are exclusively triable by Court of Session.

The division as is made for the trial for the criminal proceeding is because of severity of
punishment, to check the miscarriage of justice, and for speedy judgement.

Every accused person has a right to be defended by a counsel of his choice; and where it appears
to the court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, it shall assign a lawyer
for his defense at the expense of the state. Thought he code does not specifically say so, yet it is
the duty of the Court of Session to ensure before the starting of trial that committing magistrate,
as required by the section 207 and 208 has supplied to the accused person for his perusal the
necessary copies of the document like the police report, FIR, statements recorded by police, etc.

The hypothesis of the researcher regarding the issue whether trial procedure is a lengthy and trial
procedure or not has been rightly proved. The researcher has gone through almost all forms of
complexities that are involved in case of a trial before a Sessions Court. In the beginning, it is
decided whether there is any cause for trial or not. Next, it is seen, if there are sufficient grounds
to convict through cross-examination, pieces of evidence etc. and lastly the accused is acquitted or
sentenced as the case may be. Therefore, this takes a lot of time and creates unnecessary delay in
trial procedure.

19 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 Dr. N.V Paranjape, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. , Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 2010
 M.D Chaturvedy, Code Of Criminal Procedure, 4th ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad,
2009
 R.V Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, 5th ed. , Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2012
 Ratanlal And Dhirajlal, Code Of Criminal Procedure, 17th ed. ,Lexisnexis Butterworths
Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 2008

LEGISLATIONS

 Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.

 Constitution of India, 1950
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

DICTIONARIES REFERRED:

 Garner Black’s Law Dictionary

 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary

20 | P a g e
REPORTS:
 Law Commission of India, 41st report, 1969
 Law Commission of india, 69th report, 1977
 Justice Malimath Committee Report, 2003

21 | P a g e