Sections 251 to 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which governed the procedure for the trial of summons-cases by Magistrates, have now been replaced by Sections 274 to 282 under Chapter XXI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, titled “Trial of Summons-Cases by Magistrates.” These provisions aim to streamline and modernise the trial process for minor offences while preserving the principles of fairness and efficiency.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the trial procedure of summons cases under BNSS, highlighting essential provisions, judicial interpretation.
Concept of Summons Cases under BNSS
One of the foundational classifications within the BNSS is the categorisation of offences into summons-cases and warrant-cases, based on the gravity of punishment prescribed for the offence. Under the BNSS, summons cases are defined in Section 2(1)(x) as
“cases relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case.”
It refers to offences that are punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years. Such cases are intended to be adjudicated swiftly and economically, aiming to lessen the burden on the judiciary while ensuring adherence to the principles of a fair trial and natural justice.
In Asia Metal Corporation (HUF) v. State & Anr. (2006), the Delhi High Court held that in summons case, the Magistrate cannot “discharge” accused persons at the stage of Section 251 CrPC (now Section 274 BNSS), as no such provision exists in Chapter XX. Relying on Subramanium Sethuraman, the Court set aside the discharge order and directed the trial to proceed.
Substance of Accusation to be Stated (Section 274)
Section 274 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, lays down the procedure to be followed when an accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate in a summons-case. According to this provision, the Magistrate is required to state the particulars of the offence to the accused. This means that the Magistrate must ensure the accused is made aware, in clear terms, of what offence he is alleged to have committed. It is not required under this section to frame a formal charge, as is necessary in warrant-cases. This simplified approach is consistent with the nature of summons-cases, which typically relate to less serious offences.
The proviso to this section introduces an important safeguard against baseless prosecutions. It empowers the Magistrate to assess the strength of the accusation at the very outset. If the Magistrate, upon a preliminary consideration, finds the accusation to be groundless, he is mandated to release the accused. This release is treated as a discharge rather than an acquittal. For transparency and accountability, the Magistrate must record the reasons for such discharge in writing. The discharge implies that the accused is released from the proceedings, but it does not bar the institution of fresh proceedings should new material or evidence emerge later.
This section thus serves a dual purpose. It simplifies the trial process in less serious offences by removing the need for a formal charge and allows for early termination of proceedings where the complaint is found to be without substance.
Conviction on Plea of Guilty (Section 275)
If the accused chooses to plead guilty, the Magistrate is required to record the plea, as closely as possible, in the exact words used by the accused. This ensures accuracy and transparency in the record, leaving no ambiguity about what was actually stated.
After recording the plea, the Magistrate has the discretion to convict the accused based on that plea. This means the Magistrate is not bound to convict automatically—he may choose not to do so if he believes the plea is not voluntary, is unclear, or if the case merits further scrutiny.
In essence, this section ensures that a guilty plea is treated seriously but fairly, with safeguards to prevent misuse or coercion, and gives the Magistrate room to act judiciously in each case.
Conviction on Plea of Guilty in Absence of Accused in Petty Cases (Section 276)
Sub-section (1) of Section 276 applies in cases where a summons has been issued under Section 229, and the accused voluntarily wishes to plead guilty. Instead of appearing in person, the accused is allowed to send a letter to the Magistrate, either by post or through a messenger, clearly stating his plea of guilt. Along with the plea, the accused must also send the amount of fine specified in the summons. This provision is designed to save time and resources for both the court and the accused, especially in minor offences where personal appearance may not be necessary.
Sub-section (2) of Section 276 empowers the Magistrate, upon receiving such a plea and the fine amount, to exercise discretion and convict the accused in his absence. If the Magistrate is satisfied with the plea of guilt, he may proceed to sentence the accused to pay the specified fine, and the fine amount already transmitted will be adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, if the accused has authorized an advocate to appear and plead guilty on his behalf, the Magistrate shall record the plea in the words used by the advocate and may, at his discretion, convict and sentence the accused accordingly.
Procedure When Not Convicted (Section 277)
Section 277 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, outlines the procedure that a Magistrate must follow when an accused is not convicted under Sections 275 or 276. This typically happens when the accused does not plead guilty, or the Magistrate, using his discretion, decides not to convict the accused on the basis of the guilty plea. In such cases, the Magistrate is obligated to proceed with a full hearing of the case.
The Magistrate must first hear the prosecution and allow it to present and prove its case by producing all available evidence in support of the allegations. Once the prosecution has laid down its case, the accused is also given a fair opportunity to be heard and to present his evidence and witnesses in defence. This ensures compliance with the principle of natural justice and the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Further, to facilitate the trial, both parties—the prosecution and the accused—have the right to request the court to summon witnesses or produce relevant documents or objects. This empowers the parties to bring necessary material before the court in support of their respective cases. However, the issuance of such summons is at the discretion of the Magistrate, and he may evaluate whether the request is genuine and necessary for the trial.
Before summoning any witness based on such a request, the Magistrate is also vested with the authority to demand the deposit of reasonable expenses that the witness may incur to appear in court. This provision is aimed at preventing the misuse of the court’s process and ensuring that witnesses are not burdened financially for their appearance.
Acquittal or Conviction (Section 278)
Section 278 of the BNSS, 2023 lays down the Magistrate’s duties after evaluating all the evidence. If, after examining the evidence presented under Section 277 and any additional evidence he chooses to gather, the Magistrate finds that the accused is not guilty, he must acquit the accused by recording an appropriate order. On the other hand, if the evidence proves the accused to be guilty and the Magistrate is not invoking special procedures under Sections 364 or 401, he is required to pronounce a sentence as per the law. Furthermore, even if the offence disclosed during trial differs from the one mentioned in the complaint or summons, the Magistrate can still convict the accused for any offence triable under this Chapter, provided the facts justify such conviction and the accused is not unfairly affected by the change.
Non-appearance or Death of Complainant (Section 279)
Section 279 of the BNSS, 2023 deals with the absence of the complainant in a summons-case. If the complainant does not appear on the scheduled date or any adjourned date, the Magistrate must give 30 days’ time for the complainant to appear. If the complainant still does not appear, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless there is a valid reason to postpone the case further.
However, if the complainant is represented by an advocate or a public prosecutor, or if the Magistrate feels the complainant’s personal presence is not needed, the case can still proceed without the complainant.
This rule also applies when the complainant has died, and their non-appearance is due to their death.
Withdrawal of Complaint (Section 280)
This provision under the BNSS, 2023 deals with the withdrawal of a complaint in a summons-case. It allows the complainant to seek withdrawal of the case at any stage before the final order is passed by the Magistrate. This provides the complainant an opportunity to discontinue proceedings if justified by sufficient reasons.
The complainant must satisfy the Magistrate that there are valid and sufficient grounds for such withdrawal. The discretion lies with the Magistrate to examine the circumstances and decide whether to permit the withdrawal, ensuring that the withdrawal is not arbitrary or intended to defeat justice.
Importantly, the provision applies not only when there is a single accused but also in cases where multiple persons are accused. The complainant may withdraw the complaint against all or only some of the accused, depending on the facts of the case.
Once the Magistrate grants permission for withdrawal, he is required to acquit the accused against whom the complaint has been withdrawn. This results in a formal conclusion of the case for those individuals, relieving them from any further proceedings in the matter.
This provision thus strikes a balance between the complainant’s autonomy and the judicial oversight necessary to prevent misuse, ensuring that acquittal follows only upon justified withdrawal.
Power to Stop Proceedings in Certain Cases (Section 281)
In a summons-case that is not based on a complaint, a Magistrate of the first class, or any other Judicial Magistrate with prior approval of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, may stop the proceedings at any stage, provided he records the reasons for doing so.
If the main witnesses have already been examined, the Magistrate must pronounce a judgment of acquittal.
If such evidence has not been recorded, the Magistrate may release the accused, which will be treated as a discharge, not an acquittal.
This provision gives the Magistrate the discretion to halt proceedings without giving a judgment, ensuring fairness when continuing the case is not justified.
Power of Court to Convert Summons Cases into Warrant-Cases (Section 282)
This provision allows a Magistrate to shift the procedure from a summons-case to a warrant-case if necessary. Specifically, when a summons-case involves an offence punishable with imprisonment of more than six months, and during the trial, the Magistrate feels that justice demands a more detailed procedure, he has the power to change the mode of trial.
The Magistrate may convert the trial to follow warrant-case procedure, which is more elaborate and safeguards the rights of both parties.
While doing so, the Magistrate may also recall and re-examine any witness already examined under the earlier summons procedure.
This ensures that serious cases are handled with greater procedural rigor and that no injustice is done merely because the case started as a summons-case.
Conclusion
The procedure for the trial of summons cases before a Magistrate under the BNSS, 2023 reflects a pragmatic blend of procedural efficiency and legal fairness. While maintaining continuity with earlier provisions under the CrPC, it introduces innovative features to cope with modern-day challenges in criminal justice administration.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[2] Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973
[3] Asia Metal Corporation (HUF) v. State & Anr., 130(2006)DLT545
[4] Warrant, Summons and Summary Trial, Available Here
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
