CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

SUMMARY TRIAL
Section 260 - Section 265

!1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
JUDICIAL OFFICERS EMPOWERS TO TRY SUMMARILY ......................................................... 5
OFFENCES TRIABLE IN A SUMMARY MANNER........................................................................ 7
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN SUMMARY TRIALS ..................................................................... 7
JUDGMENT IN CASES TRIED SUMMARILY.............................................................................. 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................................11

!2
INTRODUCTION

Summary Trial is an abridged form of regular trial and is an expedited procedure.

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.

The law commission in its 41st report observed that,

From the point of view of procedure, a summary trial is an abridged form of a

regular trial and is resorted to in order to save time in trying petty cases. Shortcuts
in procedure in criminal cases or not without risks but in view of safeguards
provided as to the type of judicial officer who may exercise this power the nature of
the offence that may be so tried and punished that may be inflicted in such trials,
summary jurisdiction is justifiable.

Summary trial is not intended for contentious and complicated cases which necessitate a
lengthy inquiry. The object of summary trial is to have a record sufficient for the purpose of
Justice not so long as to impede speedy disposal of cases.

It is a speedy trial which is to be done adopted by dispensing with the necessary

formalities or delay. In a summary trial the magistrate has to follow the procedure under
section 263 of the code which is simplified and shortened procedure of the summons
case.
This procedure can be described as “Bonsai trial” which has all the characteristics and the
stages of summons trial yet it is not as lengthy and detailed as the summons case.
The special powers are to be invoked and used very cautiously by the magistrate, but it is
an effective tool to reduce the "time and the judge was in the process of justice.1

The same procedure as in a summons case is to be observed (s.262) any steps in that
procedure for regular trial is not to be eliminated, and the right of cross examination also
exists in summary trial as in a regular trial. But the trial is to be shortened or simplified by
having recourse to certain provisions in the matter of preparation of record, recording of
evidence and judgement, as have been put in by the way of exceptions in Section 263 to
265. The proceedings must be conducted with the same care as in a regular trial or
perhaps with more care, so that the accused may not entertain any apprehension of failure
of justice on account of summary procedure.2

1Ram Jethmalani, DS Chopra, “ The Code of Criminal Procedure”, Thompson Reuters, 2015
Edition
2 SC Sarkar, “The Code of Criminal Procedure”, Lexis Nevis
!3
In Bindeshwari v. Birju3, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution in not infringed by
Section 260 of the Code.

In State of Gujarat v. Dashrathlal Natwarlal Patel4 , Justice M. Thakkar observed,

It is not permissible to hold a part of the trial in the summary way and to continue
the rest of the trial in a regular manner. The illegality cannot be cured by affording
the defence an opportunity to recall the witnesses for cross-examination.
Even if a case can be tried in the summary way and if the learned Magistrate feels
that having regard to the nature of the matter, it is desirable that it should be tried in
the regular manner, he is required to hold a fresh trial and rehear the case in the
manner provided by the Code. When even a case which can be tried in a summary
way has to be reheard and a de novo trial has to be held if the mode of trial is
sought to be altered midstream where the offence is such which cannot be tried' in
a summary way at all, there is no room for the argument that a re-hearing of the
case is not essential.

The judge who is trying the case under Section 260, CrPC has to complete the case
himself or secondly if it is incomplete then the successor has no option but to again record
the evidence and complete the trial.5

3 AIR 1959 pat 46

4 1971 CriLJ 1244
5 Pratibha Pandurang Salvi v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 CrLJ 730 (Bom)
!4
JUDICIAL OFFICERS EMPOWERS TO TRY SUMMARILY

Considering the risks involved in summarily trying criminal offences, it was considered
necessary that only senior and experienced judicial officers should be empowered to try
certain petty cases summarily. Section 260 and 261 of Criminal Procedure Code discuss
the competent authorities to try these cases.

Section 260 of the Code confers any Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate
and Magistrate of the first class with the power to try trial summarily. However, a
Magistrate of the first class in order to try summarily has to take special permission from
the High Court. As per section 261, any High Court may empower any Magistrate of the
second class to try summarily any offence punishable only with fine or with imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 6 months with or without fine and any attempt or abetment of
such offences.

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 India
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), where the value of the property stolen
does no exceed two hundred rupees;
(iii) 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 two hundred rupees;
(iv) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property under
section 414 of the Indian Panel Code (45 of 1860 ), where the value
of such property does not exceed two hundred 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 criminal intimidation, 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 ).

!5
 (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.

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 offence.

Simply because the case is triable summarily does not necessarily mean that the judicial
officer empowered to try it in a summary we must try it summarily. The magistrate has the
discretion to decide it; the discretion however, is to be used judiciously having regard to
the circumstances of each case. In serious or complicated cases it would not be just and
proper to have a summary trial. 6 On the other hand, if the offence can be tried summarily
then merely because an accused person happens to be a government servant and his
conviction would result in dismissal from service causing serious loss to him, the
magistrate shall not refuse to try him summarily.7

It may be noted here that if any magistrate not empowered by the law in this behalf tries an
offender summarily, then according to clause (M) of section 461 his proceedings shall be
void.

When an accused is charged with two offences, one of which is tribal summarily and the
other not so triable, it is not open to magistrate to discard the latter charge and to proceed
to try the case summarily.8 Further, no magistrate is empowered to split up an offence into
its component parts for the purpose of giving himself summary jurisdiction.

6 Dina Nath v. Emperor, (1913) 14 CriLJ 105, 106

7 Jagmalaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 CriLJ 2314 , 2318
8 Ramanand Mohan v. Koylash Mahton, (1985) 11 Cal 236
!6
OFFENCES TRIABLE IN A SUMMARY MANNER

Whether an offence is to be tried summarily or not is to be determined by the facts stated

in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant9 .

The magistrate is competent to dispose of a case summarily where the facts which are
alleged to have taken place disclose an offence triable summarily and the mere fact that
the complainant enumerates section of the IPC relating to offences not triable summarily
does not affect the jurisdiction of the magistrate, unless the facts of which he really
complains discloses such offences.10

Where a person is charged with a grave offence, the magistrate ought not to cut down the
offence to a less serious one at his own will in order to give himself jurisdiction to try it
summarily.11

When an accused is charged with offences some triable summarily and some not so
triable, it is not open to the Magistrate to give himself the jurisdiction by disregarding the
latter offences, but there cannot be a hard and fast rule and much depends upon the facts
of each case. If the allegation as to the latter offences appears to be untrustworthy the
Magistrate may proceed summarily.

PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN SUMMARY TRIALS

9 Fanindra Nath Chatterjee v. Emperor, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 67

10 Golap Pandey v. RH Boddam, (1889) ILR 16 Cal 715
11 Sheo Bhajan, ILR 27 Cal 983
!7
 262. Procedure for summary trials.
(1) In trials under this Chapter, the procedure specified in this Code for the
trial of summons- ease 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.
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 the date on which proceedings
terminated.

The provisions of this section are imperative and a breach thereof amounts to an illegality
and not an irregularity.12

Cases relating to fence is covered by clause 2 to 6 are mostly warrant cases. However, as
the maximum punishment that can be awarded in the summary trial being only three
months imprisonment as provided under section 262(2), and as the offences are triable
only by specially empowered magistrates and other senior magistrate, it has been
considered expedient to follow summons case procedure.

However, there is no restriction on the amount of fine that can be imposed in accordance
with the law. The limit of imprisonment refers only to the substantive sentence, not to an
alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a 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 imposed for the offence.13

The maximum period of imprisonment is three months. An accused convicted of more than
one offence cannot be sentenced to more than 3 months imprisonment in the aggregate.
Three months imprisonment can be inflicted on each charge to run concurrently but not
consecutively.14 However, the aggregate terms of substantive sentence of imprisonment
and of the sentence in default of payment may exceed the maximum of three months.15

12 Mangi Lal, (1945) All 131

13 Asghar Ali, (1883) 6 All 61
14 Chettmal, AIR 1934 SC 195
15 Ghulam, AIR 1943 SC 124
!8
In the case of Abdul Rahaman16, it was observed that particulars of offence must be
stated to the accused and he should be asked whether he would plead guilty or not. A
mere reference to the sections of IPC to the accused without mentioning the particulars of
the offence is no compliance with this section. If the accused pleads guilty his plea should
be recorded as nearly as possible in his own words as provided under Section 25617

Under section 263, the register containing the particulars mentioned in the section from
the recording of summary trial. The evidence or witnesses need not be recorded nor a
formal charge framed. In every case where the accused is not to plead guilty, a judgment
containing the substance of evidence is this necessary.

The record should be written and signed by (not stamped) by the Magistrate himself
unless authorized by the High Court to prepare the record ad judgment by means of an
officer appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate . 18
Where a magistrate, in the case tried summarily, simply initialed the judgment without
affixing his full signature thereto, the commission was held to be a mere irregularity not
affecting the legality of the conviction.19

When in a summary trial, the evidence has been recorded partly by one magistrate who
has taken note of evidence and made them part of record of the case and that magistrate
is succeeded by another magistrate, the successor can decide the case on the evidence
party recorded by his predecessor partly recorded by himself. It is not required that in
every case where the keys 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.20

In the case of a summary trial, in which so little is recorded and therefore there is so little
protection from without to the persons accused, against the risk of error, haste or
inaccuracy, the scanty provisions of Section 263 must be fully and strictly complied with in
this sense that the record must be sufficiently exact, and sufficiently full to enable the
revisional Court to say whether the law has been complied with or not on the points to be
recorded. Three things viz., the offence charged, the offence, if any, proved, and the
reasons for convicting, must be recorded, and recorded in such a way as, to enable the
Court of Revision to say, aye or no, from within the four corners of the record itself,
whether the offence charged is an offence in point of law, whether the offence proved is an
offence in point of law, and whether the reasons for the conviction are good and sufficient
reasons.21

16 AIR 1970 J&K 135

17 Hansraj v. State AIR 1956 All 64
18 Subramanaya v Queen, 6 Mad 396
19 Puttapppa v. Maligamma, (1954) Mys 147
20 Reserve Bank Employee Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1969 Bom 199
21 Rattan Singh v. State,1954 CriLJ 121; Brij Kishore v. State AIR 1965 All 482
!9
JUDGMENT IN CASES TRIED SUMMARILY

Section 264 lays down that in every case tried summarily in which the accused is not plead
guilty of before the magistrate must record substance of the evidence and judgment
delivered must also contains a brief statement of reasons for coming to particular finding.

When Section 264 provides that the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence,
it is implied that the substance of the evidence is to be recorded at the time when the
evidence is given in Court. To embody the substance of the evidence in a judgment from
memory or from short notes made at the time when evidence was given does not amount
to compliance with Section 264. This is further clear when we consider the wording of the
original Section 264 which was replaced by the amendment brought about by
Parliamentary Act XXVI of 1955. That section as it originally stood required that the
Magistrate "shall, before passing sentence, record judgment embodying the substance of
the evidence and also the particulars mentioned in Section 263." The purpose of
amending this section was obviously to require that the record of the substance of the
evidence shall be separate from the judgment delivered by the Magistrate.22 The evidence
must be sufficient to justify the magistrates order.23

The expression “substance of evidence” means that such evidence as is sufficient to justify
the order made and appellate Court to perform its functions.24 In Krishna Nayar Ram
Nayar v. State,25 the phrase “Substance” means all important or substantial part of the
deposition. Substance of evidence is distinct from the facts proved by the evidence.

Substance of evidence should be recorded in such a manner that would enable a higher
Court to decide that there were sufficient materials to support the findings. The failure to
embody the substance of the evidence in the judgment vitiates the trial.26 The brief
statements of reason coupled with the other entries should be so exact and full that
revision court may be able, from within the four corners of record itself, to say:
(i) whether the offence charged and offence proved is an offence in law;
(ii) Whether the reason for conviction are good and sufficient;
(iii) What the defence was; and
(iv) Whether the case could properly be tried summarily.
While reasons should be recorded with brevity, the brevity should not tend to obscurity.27

Section 265 emphasizes that every record i.e., the particulars mentioned under section
263 and the substance of evidence and judgment must be recorded in the language of the

22 Krishna Nayar Ram Nayar v. State, (1959) 61 Bom LR 684

23 Ainuddi Sheikh v. Queen Empress, (1900) 27 Cal 450
24 State v. Ishar Das, AIR 1956 Punj 160
25 AIR 1960 Bom 107
26 Sankaran Unni Vasudevan v. Rasheed, 1980 CrLJ 304
27 Baijoo, AIR 1939 O 37
!10
court. The magistrate must write his full name and the mere putting office initials are not
sufficient.28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ram Jethmalani, DS Chopra, “ The Code of Criminal Procedure”, Thompson

Reuters, 2015 Edition
2. SC Sarkar, “The Code of Criminal Procedure”, Lexis Nexis
3. Ratanlal, Dhirajlal, “ The Code of Criminal Procedure”, Lexis Nexis, 2018
4. https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/corporatecrime/document/391421/591N-
VY01-F188-N14R-00000-00/Summary_trial_overview#
5. https://lawtimesjournal.in/summary-trials/
6. http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/
CourtRuleFile_YGA6Z61I.PDF
7. http://crlreview.in/summary-trials-under-crpc/

28 Re Vellivalli Brahmaiah, (1930) ILR 54 Mad 252

!11