“TRIALS OF WARRANT CASES BY MAGISTRATE”

PROJECT BY
NAME: ATUL VINAYAK MANOJ
COURSE: B.B.A. LLB (Hons.)
ROLL NO: 1823
SEMESTER: 4th

SUBMITTED TO
Dr. Fr. PETER LADIS
FACULTY OF LAW

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE CRIMINAL LAW - II

FOR THE DEGREE TITLED B.B.A. LLB (Hons.)

February, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA – 800
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my faculty for Criminal Law
II, Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis, for having given me the opportunity to present this
draft after extensive research on the subject. This successful completion is
dedicated to the time and patience he has devoted into clarifying doubts
and assisting with the structure of this draft.

I would further like to thank my parents and friends whose support,

constant motivation and help has facilitated the completion of this draft.

THANKING YOU,

NAME: ATUL VINAYAK MANOJ

ROLL NO: 1823

COURSE: BBA LLB (Hons.)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. MEANING AND DEFINTION
2. TRIAL PROCEDURE INSTITUTED BY A POLICE REPORT
3. TRIAL PROCEDURE INSTITUTED BY A COMPLAINT
4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRIAL OF WARRANT CASES AND
TRIAL OF SUMMONS CASES.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
 MEANING AND DEFINITION
What is a warrant case?
A warrant case within this Act is one where the offences are punishable by
death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for which the term exceeds
two years. Cases tried before a Court of Sessions are all warrant cases
except for cases pertaining to defamation which is dealt with under
Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

These warrant cases are further divided into two main categories from
Sections 238 to 250, they are1:

 Cases instituted on a police report: Sections 238 to 243.

 Cases instituted otherwise than on police report: Sections 244 to
247.
 Conclusion of trials: Sections 248 to 250.

The last classification, i.e. conclusion of trials is not included as a separate

category because the procedure determined within it pertains to the first
two categories. This classification did not exist under the previous Act of
1898 and was added as an amendment in 1955 under Sections 251 and
251A which was later adopted in the enactment under the 1973 Act.

Section 238 states that in case a warrant case is instituted the provisions of section 207 have
to be complied with. In case there is no prima facie case the person would be discharged u/s
239. And in case there is some suspicion or possibilities that the accused might have
committed an offence charges would be framed, which have to read and explained to the
accused. u/s 241 the accused would be convicted by the judge on plea of guilty. And if no
such plea is there from the accused the trial would continue and the evidence from the
prosecution will have to be produced. u/s 243 the defence would be given chance produce its
evidences.

Sections 244-247 provides for provisions in case the case is instituted by any other way than
the police report. The section 244 provides that the Court shall give a hearing to the
prosecution regarding the nature and character of the evidence that it wants to produce in
support of the prosecution case. The SC has held that the Magistrate is required to take all the

1 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Trial-of-warrant-cases-7919.asp
evidence that may be produced by the prosecution, and he cannot pass an order of discharge
u/s 245 until all the witnesses produced by the prosecution are examined by him.2
In case the person is not discharged the rest of the proceeding will take place according to the
procedure laid u/s 246. The charges would be framed and read and explained to the accused,
if he pleads guilty the conviction would place and if not then he would be tried and then list
of witnesses to be examined and cross examined would be dealt with. Section 247 provides
for the evidence produced by the defence.

Sections 248-250 talk of the conclusion of the trial, instituted in both the cases, by police
report or otherwise. Section 248 provides for the acquittal or conviction on the conclusion of
the trial. The judge is supposed to provide for adequate sentence. Section 249 talks about the
procedure in case the absence of the complainant. If that is the case the magistrates, if
deemed fit, can discharge the accused. In case the accusations are made against the accused
without reasonable ground will be provided compensation u/s 250. This provision u/s 250
applies to both summon and warrant cases.3
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. The researcher tends to analyse the significance of the trials of warrant cases and the
procedures followed.
2. The researcher tends to analyse the difference between trials of warrant cases and
other such trials.

HYPOTHESIS

The researcher tends to presume that:

1. Trial of Warrant cases is very lengthy.

2. Trial of Warrant cases and their procedure delay and deny justice.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will be relying on the doctrinal mode of research for this draft.

2 V. C. Shukla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 962

3 Mohd. Jiaur Rehman v State of Assam, 2005 Cri LJ 4245 (Gau).

 TRIAL PROCEDURE INSTITUTED BY A POLICE REPORT
When in any warrant case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought
before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that
he has complied with the provisions of Section 207 4, viz., copies of the police report, first
information report recorded under Section 154 5; the statements recorded by the police,
excluding there from any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made
by the police officer, the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164 and
any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police
report has been furnished to the accused.6 This is enumerated under Section 238. The
underlying purpose in prescribing this procedure is to ensure the speedy disposal of warrant
cases instituted on police reports without in anyway prejudicing the accused.7

Under Section 239, If upon consideration of the police report and the documents and making
such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving
the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the
charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge him. The Trial Court is
required to see whether ground for presuming commission of offence exists or whether the
charge is groundless; whether a prima facie case pertaining to the commission of the offence
is made out or not.8

But if, upon such consideration, he is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter (Chap. XIX), which such
Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by
him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

The charge shall be read and explained to the accused and he shall be asked whether he
pleads guilty, or claims to be tried. (Section 240) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate
shall record the plea and may in his discretion, convict him thereon. If he refuses to plead, or
claims to be tried, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. The

4 Professionals, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Bare Act.

5 Ibid
6 Rinku Mishra, Procedure to be adopted in a Warrant Case Instituted by A Police Report, shareyouressays,
www.shareyouressays.com
7 Pulugani Veeraraghaveulu (1958) Andhra 143.
8 A.R. Saravenan v. State, 2003 CrLJ 1140 (Mad)///////
Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its
witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. This section
corresponds to clauses (3) and (4) of Section 251A of the old Code, it should be read along
with the previous section. When after considering the entire material referred to in Section
239, the Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence, he shall
frame the charge in writing.9

On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution. The Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of
any witnesses to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined; or
recall any witness for further cross-examination. (Section 242)10

The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence;
and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.

The Magistrate may issue any process for the attendance of any witness for examination or
cross-examination or the production of any document or other thing, if the accused, after he
has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate. The Magistrate shall not issue such
process if he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made
for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.11

The Magistrate shall also not compel the attendance of a witness if the accused has cross-
examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining him before entering on his defence,
unless he is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of justice. The Magistrate may
require the deposit of reasonable expenses before summoning any witness. (Section 243)

If, in any case under this chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the
accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.

9 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

10 Supra at 4
11 Supra at 6
 TRIAL PROCEDURE INSTITUTED BY A COMPLAINT

Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if in any warrant-case instituted
otherwise than on a Police Report, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate,
the Magistrate must immediately proceed to hear the prosecution, and take all such evidence
as may be produced in support of the prosecution. On the application of the prosecution, the
Magistrate may also issue a summons to any witness, directing him to attend, or to produce
any document or other thing.12

If, after taking all such evidence, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded by him,
that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his
conviction, the Magistrate must discharge him. Moreover, the Magistrate can also discharge
the accused at any previous stage of the case, if he considers the charge to be groundless, for
reasons to be recorded by him.13

If, on the other hand, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is some ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence which is triable under this Chapter, and which the
Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion, can be adequately punished by him,
he must frame a charge in writing against the accused. The charge is then to be read out and
explained to the accused, and he is to be asked whether he pleads guilty, or whether he has
any defence to make.14

If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate must record the plea, and may, in his discretion,
convict him on such plea.

If, however, the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried, or if he is
not convicted despite pleading guilty, the accused must be required to state whether he wishes
to cross-examine any witness for the prosecution whose evidence had already been taken. If
he wishes to do so, the witness named by him must be recalled, and after cross-examination
and re-examination (if any), such a witness is to be discharged. After this the accused is to be
called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence.

12 Someshwar Sawal, Procedure followed by a Magistrate in the Trial of a Warrant Case Instituted by a
Complaint, Shareyouressays, www.shareyouressays.com
13 Supra at 9
14 Trials of Warrant Cases by Magistrate, Advocate Guru, https://advocateguru.com
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRIALS OF WARRANT CASES
AND TRIALS OF SUMMONS CASES
It would be pertinent to bring out the differences between a summons case and a warrant case
from the point of procedure to be adopted for trial of these cases. The differences between the
two are enumerated into 13 points as follows:

(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes two procedures for the trial of a warrant case
by Magistrates, namely, one to be adopted by the Magistrate in case instituted on a Police
Report while the other in case instituted otherwise than on a Police Report. But there is only
one procedure prescribed for trial of a summons case whether it is instituted on a Police
Report or a complaint.
(2) 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.
(3) Where a warrant case has been tried as a summons case and it has resulted into acquittal
of the accused, such acquittal shall operate only as a discharge under Section 245 of the
Code. On the other hand, where a summons case has been tried as a warrant case and the
accused is discharged under Section 245, the discharge will amount to an acquittal under
Section 255 of the Code.
(4) When the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate in a warrant case, the
Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution. But in a summon case, the particulars of offence are
stated to the accused and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or wishes to defend
himself.
(5) Framing of a formal charge is necessary in a warrant case but it is not necessary in a
summons case.
(6) When the charges reveal both, a warrant case and a summons case, the former is to be
preferred.
(7) A charge under warrant case cannot be split up into its constituents for trial under a
summons case.
(8) In a warrant case, the accused gets more than one opportunity to cross- examine the
prosecution witnesses whereas in a summons case he gets only one opportunity to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses.
(9) A warrant case may result into discharge of the accused under Section 249 in the absence
of the complainant but in a summons case, the result would be acquittal of the accused under
Section 256 of the Code.
(10) In a warrant case a complaint cannot be withdrawn by the complainant but in a summons
case the complainant may withdraw the complaint with the permission of the Magistrate.
(11) The Magistrate is empowered to convert a summons case into a warrant case under
Chapter XX of the Code but a warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case.
(12) 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 finding thereon. But no such power is conferred on the Magistrate while trying the
accused in a summons case.
(13) In a summons case, after the issue of summons, the accused may plead guilty by post
without appearing before the Magistrate. But no such provision exists in trial of a warrant
case.
 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The procedure implemented in the trials of warrant cases by Magistrate under this Act reveal
the following:

1. The procedure adopted and implemented as far as dealing with such cases is
concerned, does ensure the speedy disposal of such cases.
2. There is an in-depth analysis of the evidences procured for the purposes of such cases
whereby ensuring that such evidences are examined and cross examined.
3. The accused is also given the opportunity to cross examine witnesses testifying
against him which helps maintain transparency.
4. This in turn, facilitates the speedier delivery of justice.
5. As a result, trials of warrant cases ensure that the procedure neither delays, nor denies
justice.

The points illustrated above help reveal that the researcher’s hypothesis, i.e:

1. Trial of Warrant cases is very lengthy

2. Trial of warrant cases, delay and deny justice,

The hypothesis, stands disproved.

Further, the provisions enumerated under Sections 238-251, help ensure that reasonable
opportunity is given to the accused as far as his conviction or acquittal (as the case maybe),
goes, which further goes to justify that trials of warrant cases help ensure the speedy delivery
of justice and the disposal of cases which further elaborates that the proposed hypothesis
stands disproved.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The researcher has consulted the following sources with respect to the completion of this
draft:

1. PRIMARY SOURCES:
Professionals, The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Bare Act.
2. SECONDARY SOURCES:
a. BOOKS: Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal – The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
b. WEBSITES:
a. www.lawyersclubindia.com
b. https://advocateguru.com
c. www.shareyouressays.com
d. www.legalbites.in