www.dpsalegal.com THE RATIONALE summary trials, trial of summons cases, trial of warrant cases and trial of cases triable by a court of session. Broadly speaking, their classification of the offences for the purpose of applying these different sets of provisions was according to the gravity of the offences, though in classifying the offences fit for summary trial the experience and power of the trying Magistrate was also taken into consideration. The net result of these provisions is that offences which are summarily triable can be more speedily tried than summons cases, summons cases can be more speedily tried than warrant cases, and warrant cases can be more speedily tried than sessions cases. The framers of the Code appear to have been generally of the view that the graver the offence the more elaborate should be the procedure for its trial… SUMMONS CASE AND WARRANT CASE Learned Chief Justice of India, HMJ P. Shastri, observed in the landmark judgment of The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar , that the makers of the Criminal Procedure Code of India were alive to the desirability of having a speedy trial in certain classes of cases, and with this end in view they made four different sets of provisions for the trial of four classes of cases:
Transcript
www.dpsalegal.com
THE RATIONALE
summary trials, trial of summons cases, trial of warrant cases and trial of cases triable by a court of session.
Broadly speaking, their classi�cation of the o�ences for the purpose of applying these di�erent sets of provisions was according to the gravity of the o�ences, though in classifying the o�ences �t for summary trial the experience and power of the trying Magistrate was also taken into consideration. The net result of these provisions is that o�ences which are summarily triable can be more speedily tried than summons cases, summons cases can be more speedily tried than warrant cases, and warrant cases can be more speedily tried than sessions cases.
The framers of the Code appear to have been generally of the view that the graver the o�ence the more elaborate should be the procedure for its trial…
SUMMONS CASE AND WARRANT CASE
Learned Chief Justice of India, HMJ P. Shastri, observed in the landmark judgment of The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar , that the makers of the Criminal Procedure Code of India were alive to the desirability of having a speedy trial in certain classes of cases, and with this end in view they made four di�erent sets of provisions for the trial of four classes of cases:
www.dpsalegal.com
DEFINITION"Summons-case" means a case relating to an o�ence, and not being a warrant-case.
"Warrant-case" means a case relating to an o�ence which is punishable with:
death,
imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years .
THE CRUX OF THE MATTERAs per the Criminal Procedure Code of India:
An o�ence is classi�ed as either cognizable or non-cognizable, and A trial procedure is classi�ed as summons case or warrant case.
In other words, terms ‘summons case’ and ‘warrant case’ are used in reference to the procedure adopted by the magistrate for the trial of the case, which is entirely di�erent for both:
The procedure prescribed for summons cases is simpler and speedier than that prescribed for warrant cases. Warrant cases as they deal with o�ences graver than those in summons cases cannot be tried in the same simple and speedy fashion as summons cases. Greater opportunities for defense are o�ered to the accused in a warrant case than in a summons case.
Unlike in a summons case a charge has to be framed in a warrant case and the accused has also a right to reserve cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses till a last stage. These are substantial and valuable rights which an accused has if the procedure prescribed in Chapter XXI is followed and he cannot be deprived of them.
The di�erence between the two forms of trial is not therefore merely one of form importing more irregularity curable u/S. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, it is so vital that there is an almost indefeasible presumption of prejudice to the accused if a warrant case is tried as a summons case ."
An accused person gets (only one chance of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses under the summons procedure whereas under the warrant procedure he is entitled to cross-examine the said witnesses twice, once before the framing of the charge and again after the charge is framed. In summons cases where the personal attendance of the accused has been dispensed with, either under Section 205 or under Section 540-A, the court should have a power to dispense with his examination; and in other cases, even where his personal attendance has been dispensed with, the accused should be examined personally.
www.dpsalegal.com
A Tabular Representation for better understanding:
WARRANT CASE SUMMONS CASE
In a warrant case CrPC prescribes two di�erent procedures to be followed by the magistrate, depending on whether the case is instituted on a police report or if it is instituted on other than a police report.
However, irrespective of how it was instituted, there is only one procedure prescribed by the CrPC for the trial of a summons case.
A charge needs to be framed against the accused in a warrant case.
There is no such requirement in a summons case, and only conveying the particulars of an o�ence to the accused shall su�ce.
As per S. 241, After the charge is framed, the accused may plead guilty and the magistrate may convict him on his discretion.
As per S. 252, if the accused pleads guilty, the magistrate must record the plea of the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him on such plea.
The trial of a warrant case as a summons case is a serious irregularity which would vitiate the trial if the accused has been prejudiced.
But the trial of a summons case as a warrant-case is only an irregularity which is curable under Section 465 of the Code.
Accused must appear personallyAccused may plead guilty by post without appearing before the magistrate.
When a warrant case is tried as a summons case and if the accused is acquitted under S. 255, the acquittal will only amount to discharge.
When a summons case is tried as a warrant case and if the accused is discharged under S 245, the discharge will amount to acquittal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
S.No.
www.dpsalegal.com
Accused must appear personally. Accused may plead guilty through post, without appearing personally before the judge.
A warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case
The Magistrate is empowered to convert a summons case into a warrant case under Chapter XX of the Code
In a warrant case, the accused gets more than one opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses.
In a summons case he gets only one opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
A warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case.
As per Section 259, a summons case can be converted into a warrant case if the case relates to an o�ence that entails more than 6 months of imprisonment as punishment and the judge feels that in the interest of justice it the case should be tried as a warrant case.
In a warrant case a complaint cannot be withdrawn by the complainant.
In a summons case the complainant may withdraw the complaint with the permission of the Magistrate.
In a warrant case, after convicting the accused, the Magistrate may take evidence regarding the alleged previous conviction, which is not admitted by the accused, and shall record his �nding thereon.
No such power is conferred on the Magistrate while trying the accused in a summons case.
However, one must note that the question whether a summons or a warrant should be issued in a given case is not related to whether the case is a summons case or a warrant case.
