dex of authorities

List of statutes:

 Constitution of India, 1950

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 Indian Evidence Act,1872
 Indian Penal Code,1860

Table of cases:

 Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004)7 SCC 338.

 Aslam Ikbal Wali Mohammed v. State of Karnataka, 1976 Cri LJ 317,319 (Kant).
 Bhajja Vs. Emperor, (1939) 40 Cri LJ 549.
 Budhan Choudary v.State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.
 G.D.Chadha v. State of Rajasthjhghjgjkhgjkhgbbmnbmban, 1972 Cri LJ 1585,1587
(Raj).
 Ghisia v. State, AIR 1959 Raj 266.
 Gopal Chauhan v. Satya, 1979 Cri LJ 446 (HP).
 Hiralal Gopilal Rathore v. State of M.P., 1988 Cr LJ 457 (M.P).
 In Re Appavu Padayachi, 16 Cr LJ 250.
 In re Gannon Dunkley & Co , AIR 1950 Mad 837.
 Jodha Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1923 All 285,286.
 K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1992) I SCC 217.
 Kaju v. State, 1985 CrLJ 368 (Cal-DB).
 Mahabir Prasad v. State, AIR 1958 Orissa 11.
 Mahabir v. State, AIR 1958 Orissa 11.
 Mahant Abhey Dass v. S.Gurdial singh, 1971 Cri LJ 691.
 Nandkumar Krishnarao Navgire v. Jananath Laxman Kushalkar, 1998 SCC (Cri) 637.
 Parvin Chandra Mody v. State of Andra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185.
 Sayeeda Farhana Shamim v. State of Bihar, (2008) 8 SCC 218.
  Shyam Sunder Rout v. State of Orissa, 1991 Cri LJ 1595 (Ori).
 State of Karnataka v. Dhandapani Modaliar, 1992 Cri LJ 24 (Kant).
 State of Kerala v. Chippan Appu, 1959 Ker LJ 1379.
 State of U.P Vs. Babu, 1991 CrLJ 991.
 State v. Bhimcharan, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 83.
 State v. Thomba, 1971 Cr LJ 734.
 SubramaniumSethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324.
 T.N.Janardhanan Pillai v. State, 1992 Cri LJ 436 (Ker).
 Venkateswara Rao v. State A.C.B, 1979 Cri LJ 255,257 (AP).

List of abbreviations:

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another
AP Andhra Pradesh
Art Article
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal
HC High Court
HP Himachal Pradesh
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kant Karnataka
Ker Kerala
Ltd
Ors. Others
p. Page Number
Raj Rajasthan
S/s,ss Section, Sections
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v./ vs. Versus

Chapter I

1.1. Introduction:
One of the fruitful things that is given by Britain to India, during her reign 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 impo. This paper
focuses on the chapter 19- ‘Trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates’, which forms a crucial
part of the Act.

The scope of the project is limited to the study on warrant cases amd its trial proceedings. And
consequentially, the paper also explains briefly about other types of trials, to classify and
distinguish the trial of warrant cases from others and also to classify the in-built provisions.

1.2 Research objectives:

 To study about the warrant cases and their significance

 To bring out the difference between trial of warrant cases and suh other trials
 To analyse the procedures followed in trial of warrant cases and their validity

1.3 Research questions:

1. What is a warrant case and how is it different from other cases?

2. What is the difference between trial of warrant cases by police report and private
complaint?
3. On what basis, the Magistrates come to a conclusion either to convict or acquit an
accused?
4. Whether the classification of trial of warrants case is beneficial or it needs further
amendments?
1.4 Research methodology:

The researcher has adopted doctrinal method of research and the entire paper is in the form of
analysis of the established procedures, thereby following analytical mode of research. The
primary sources for this research paper are the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and relecvant
judicial decisions. Secondary sources include books, articles and web sources.

Chapter II

2.1 What is a warrant case?

The Criminal procedure code provides different types of trial to provide possible means inorder
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 warant case for the purpose of the Act, is a case relating to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years 2 and other petty cases
would come under summons cases. Cases tried before a Court of Session are all warrant cases
except defamation cases under s.237. Those cases will be tried by the Magistrates as given under
Column 6 of First Schedule and these procedures are comparatively elaborate owing to its nature
of gravity and seriousness.

1
Pillai K.N.Chandrasekharan, R.V.Kelkar’s Lctures on Criminal Procedure, 174(5th Edition,2015), Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow.
2
S.2(x) of CrPC,1973.
These warrant cases under ss.238 to 250 are further divided into two main categories depending
on the nature of the complaint. Ss.238 to 243 deals with the provisions relating to the trial of
warrant cases instituted through police report and ss.244 to 247 deals with other types like that of
a private complaint. The last part of this cluster, say from s.248 to 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
ss.251 and 251A for the older s.251, which was later adopted in 1973 enactment.

2.2 Difference between trial of summons and warrant cases:

S.2(w) of CrPC defines a summons case to be relating to an offence, and which does not qualify
to be a warrant case. Hence, we can come to a conclusion, a summons case is one which relates
to less serious offences for which the imprisonment will not exceed beyond two years. Such a
distinction is sought to make the trial procedures more efficient and convenient. The notable
differences between them would include:

 There are two procedures for warrant cases – i.e, by police report and otherwise than on
police report but only one procedure is followed for trial of summons cases
 A charge need not be essentially framed for summons case, details of offence would be
sufficient but charges must be framed in warrant cases.
 The complainant can withdraw the complaint with the permission of the court in
summons case whereas such withdrawal is possible only when the accused is convicted
for one and the option is given to withdraw the charges for remaining offences and not
otherwise.
 The accused is acquitted if complainant is absent or is dead in summons case where in
warrant cases, acquittal can only be done in compoundable or non-cognizable offence
when the complainant is absent.
 If the accused pleads guilty under s.252, the Magistrate records his plea and shall convict
him in summons cases whereas for warrant cases, the Magistrate has discretion to convict
under s.241.
  The plea of guilty can be made even by post in summons and in warrant cases, accused
must appear even for that.
 Accused gets only one opportunity to cross the prosecution witnesses in summons and
more than one opportunity is given in warrant cases.
 Charges on warrant cases might resemble a summons case, though the charges cannot be
split into constituents but charges in summons cannot reflect the warrant cases
 Evidence of previous conviction can be recorded after the conclusion of trial in warrant
cases but no such power is given to Magistrate in summons cases.
 Trial of a warrant case as a summons case is serious irregularity and the trial is vitiated if
the accused has been prejudiced3and is illegal but the converse, though is also serious, is
curable under s.465.

In addition to these points, when a warrant case is tried as summons case, the acquittal will only
amount to discharge and if the converse happens, the discharge of accused will be considered as
acquittal. If the mistake of trying a summons case is found at any stage in the trial, the warrant
procedures can still be followed4. The conversion of a summons case to warrants case can be
done if the punishment for the offence would be more than 6 months and in the interest of
justice, the Magistrate feels so, as under s.259 but not vice versa i.e, a warrants case cannot be
converted into summons.

Let us now proceed to briefly understand the different procedures established for the trial of
warrant cases under CrPC.

Chapter III

3.1 Cases instituted on a police report:

This provision reiterates the principles under s.251-A of the repealed code with certain
favourable changes like the right of the accused to get copies of the documents and to know

3
State of Kerala v. Chippan Appu, 1959 Ker LJ 1379; In such cases, conviction if made will be set aside and an
order of acquittal will be merely treated as discharge. See also, Singhal M.L., Sohoni’s Code of Criminal Procedure,
(21st Edition, 2015) vol.3, Lexis Nexis, Haryana at p.1082.
4
In Re Appavu Padayachi, 16 Cr LJ 250.
about the evidence against him. It is primarily the right of the person to lodge information to
police or to make a complaint to magistrates5. The word police report would mean all types of
reports submitted by a police officer irrespective of the nature of the case (cognizable or non-
cognizable) and the capacity6. If a case initially commences as a complaint case but later is
discovered that police investigation is in process relating to that case, a report of investigation
will be called for and based on that, the procedure to be adopted will be finalised 7. And under
this category, there will be four major stages of trial to be followed.

A) Initial steps in the trial:

There are certain initial steps to be taken before the commencement of the trial so as to ensure a
planned and smooth procedure.

 Supply of copies to the accused:

S. 238 mandates that the when an accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, under this
category, the compliance of s.207 is mandatory. Accordingly, the Magistrate has to ensure that
the accused gets the copies of all the documents detailed in clauses (i) to (v) of that section. It
serves as a condition precedent to the commencement of the trial which means ‘before the
charges are framed’8. The accused in fact, has a right to know about the case initiated against him
and the details of the evidences.

 Option to discharge him:

After considering the police report and documents under s.173 i.e, charge sheet, and also after
giving the prosecution and the accused, an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate thinks
that the allegations agai

Chapter I

1.2. Introduction:

5
Mahabir Prasad v. State, AIR 1958 Orissa 11 at p.15.
6
Parvin Chandra Mody v. State of Andra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185.
7
S.210 of CrPC.
8
Pillai K.N.Chandrasekharan, R.V.Kelkar’s Lctures on Criminal Procedure, 544(6th Edition,2014), Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow.
One of the fruitful things that is given by Britain to India, during her reign 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 impo. This paper
focuses on the chapter 19- ‘Trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates’, which forms a crucial
part of the Act.

The scope of the project is limited to the study on warrant cases amd its trial proceedings. And
consequentially, the paper also explains briefly about other types of trials, to classify and
distinguish the trial of warrant cases from others and also to classify the in-built provisions.

1.2 Research objectives:

 To study about the warrant cases and their significance

 To bring out the difference between trial of warrant cases and suh other trials
 To analyse the procedures followed in trial of warrant cases and their validity

1.3 Research questions:

5. What is a warrant case and how is it different from other cases?

 What is the difference b Aslam Ikbal Wali Mohammed v. State of Karnataka, 1976 Cri
LJ 317,319 (Kant).
 Bhajja Vs. Emperor, (1939) 40 Cri LJ 549.
 Budhan Choudary v.State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.
 G.D.Chadha v. State of Rajasthjhghjgjkhgjkhgbbmnbmban, 1972 Cri LJ 1585,1587
(Raj).
 Ghisia v. State, AIR 1959 Raj 266.
  Gopal Chauhan v. Satya, 1979 Cri LJ 446 (HP).
 Hiralal Gopilal Rathore v. State of M.P., 1988 Cr LJ 457 (M.P).
 In Re Appavu Padayachi, 16 Cr LJ 250.

etween trial of warrant cases by police report and