CRIMINAL-

PROCEDURE
CODE
TOPIC : TRIAL OF SUMMONS
CASES.
SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION:
This trial is convened under the provisions of Chapter 20 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), specifically sections 251 to 259, which
govern the procedure for summons cases. According to section 2(w) of the
CrPC, summons cases are defined as those that do not fall under the category of
warrant cases and typically involve offenses punishable by a fine or
imprisonment of less than two years. Such cases are triable exclusively by a
Magistrate. Notably, in summons cases, it is not mandatory to frame a formal
written charge; it suffices for the Magistrate to communicate the substance of
the offense to the accused. The particulars of the offense are conveyed directly
to the individual, ensuring they are adequately informed of the allegations
against them. The court will now proceed with the examination of the evidence
and testimonies relevant to the case at hand.

PROCEDURE FOR SUMMONS CASES:

Section 251: Substance of accusation to be stated

Section 252: Conviction on plea of guilty

Section 253: Conviction on plea of guilty in the absence of accused in petty

cases

Section 254: Procedure when not convicted

Section 255: Acquittal or conviction

Section 256: Non-appearance or death of the complainant

Section 257: Withdrawal of complaint

Section 258: Power to stop proceedings in certain cases

Section 259: Power of court to convert summon cases into warrant cases

Section 250: Compensation for accusation without reasonable ground

SECTION 251: SUBSTANCE OF ACCUSATION TO BE STATED:

In summons cases, upon the appearance or presentation of the accused before the
Magistrate, the court shall state the substance or particulars of the offense alleged against the
accused. The accused will then be asked whether they plead guilty or wish to be tried. It is
important to note that it is not required to frame a formal written charge in these proceedings.

SECTION 252: CONVICTION ON PLEA OF GUILTY:

If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea. The Magistrate,
exercising discretion, may then proceed to convict the accused based on that plea.

SECTION 253: CONVICTION ON PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE

ABSENCE OF ACCUSED IN PETTY CASES:

This section outlines the procedure for cases where a summons has been issued under
Section 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the accused pleads guilty to the charge in
their absence, the Magistrate has the discretion to convict and sentence the accused
accordingly. Notably, a pleader may appear on behalf of the accused and enter a plea of
guilty. Additionally, the fine imposed can be paid through registered post.

SECTION 254: PROCEDURE WHEN NOT CONVICTED:

If the accused is not convicted under Section 252 or Section 253 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the evidence of the prosecution and
record it. The Magistrate will also hear and take evidence from the defence. When necessary,
summons will be issued to witnesses, and the party requesting their attendance must deposit
reasonable expenses in court for the witnesses’ attendance.

SECTION 255: ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION:

After recording the evidence, if the Magistrate determines that the accused is not
guilty, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused. Conversely, if the accused is found guilty, the
Magistrate shall either proceed in accordance with Section 325 or Section 365 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, or impose the appropriate sentence at that time.
SECTION 256: NON-APPEARANCE OR DEATH OF THE
COMPLAINANT:

This section applies exclusively to summons cases initiated on a complaint. If the

complainant is absent on the scheduled hearing date, the Magistrate may acquit the accused.
Alternatively, the Magistrate may adjourn the case to a subsequent date for hearing.
Additionally, the Magistrate may dispense with the complainant’s personal attendance if they
are represented by a pleader or if their presence is not deemed necessary.

SECTION 257: WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT:

A complaint may be withdrawn at any time before the final order is passed, provided
that prior permission is obtained from the Magistrate. The withdrawal of the complaint will
result in the acquittal of the accused.

SECTION 258: POWER TO STOP PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN

CASES:

This section applies to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint. The
Judicial Magistrate of Class I, or any other Magistrate with the prior permission of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, may stop the proceedings at any stage without delivering a judgment,
provided there are justified reasons for doing so.

Effect of Stopping Proceedings:

• If the proceedings are stopped after the evidence of the main witness has been taken,
it results in the acquittal of the accused.

• If the proceedings are stopped before the evidence of the main witness is presented,
it results in the discharge of the accused.

SECTION 259: POWER OF COURT TO CONVERT SUMMONS CASES

INTO WARRANT CASES:

A summons case may be converted into a warrant case when the offense is punishable
by imprisonment exceeding six months and such conversion is deemed to be in the interest of
justice. Upon conversion, the case will be reheard following the procedures applicable to a
warrant trial, and witnesses may be recalled for examination.
SECTION 250: COMPENSATION FOR ACCUSATION WITHOUT
REASONABLE GROUND:

An order for compensation may be issued in favour of a person who has been discharged or
acquitted by the Magistrate, provided that the discharge or acquittal is based on the lack of
sufficient grounds for the accusation. Before such an order is made, the Magistrate shall issue
a show-cause notice. The amount of compensation awarded cannot exceed the fine that the
Magistrate is empowered to impose. In the event of non-payment, the individual may be
subject to simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding 30 days. It is important to note that
the order for compensation is not final or absolute and is subject to appeal.

CASE LAWS:

[1] K.M. Matthew Case (1992)

The K.M. Matthew case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning
the rights of accused individuals and the discretion of courts in criminal proceedings. The
case arose from the conviction of K.M. Matthew, who was accused under various sections of
the Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for courts to ensure that the fundamental rights
of the accused are protected during trial. It held that an accused cannot be convicted based
solely on weak or insufficient evidence and that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The Court underscored the importance of fair trial principles and the
requirement for judicial scrutiny in the evaluation of evidence presented in criminal cases.

This case is significant in reinforcing the principles of justice and the standard of proof in
criminal law, ultimately leading to a reaffirmation of the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty.

[2] ARVIND KEJRIWAL CASE:

The Arvind Kejriwal case refers to multiple legal challenges faced by Arvind Kejriwal, the
Chief Minister of Delhi, primarily concerning allegations of defamation and misconduct.
Notably, one significant case involved a defamation suit filed against him by former Union
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in 2015, related to allegations of corruption in the Delhi and
District Cricket Association (DDCA).
The case raised critical questions about the boundaries of free speech, the use of political
discourse, and the accountability of public figures. Kejriwal’s defence centred on the
assertion of truth and public interest in his statements. The Delhi courts examined issues of
intent, public interest, and the burden of proof in defamation cases.

Ultimately, the matter highlighted the interplay between politics and law in India, as well as
the implications for freedom of expression in political discourse.