top of page
  • Writer's pictureLLC

Student Assignment Feature 04 | by Zaina Asif

Author : Zaina Asif

Q1. What is the difference between summons trial and warrant trial?What are the stages of trial in a sessions trial . Elucidate.

What is the relevance of 313 (1) (b)examination?

Ans. According to section 2(x) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Warrantko case refers to any case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. The session court does not have the power to take cognizance, only under Section 199 of the CrPC it can take cognizance directly. Whereas, a Summons case, according to section 2(w) of the Code, means a case relating to an offence not being a warrant case. In other words, Summons case includes all cases relating to offences where the punishment is less than two years. A trial in warrant case begins either by filing an FIR in Police Station or by filing it before Magistrate.


1. According to Section 225 of the Code, in ever trial before a Court of Sessions, the prosecution will be conducted by a Public Prosecutor.

2. According to section 226, when the accused appears or is brought before the Court after the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions by the competent Magistrate, the prosecution will describe the charges brought against the accused and states all the evidence in pursuance of the same for the Court.

3. Upon consideration of all the documents and submissions made by the prosecution and the accused, if the Judge feels that there isn’t sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then he may discharge him after recording the reasons for the same according to section 227 of CrPC.

In ( State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568) accused applied under section 91 to produce material in his favour from the prosecution in order to seek discharge before the sessions court under 227.

Section 91 is for the courts to examine if the documents are necessary and desirable for the defense of the accused. The question of invoking section 91 shouldn't arise since at the initial stage of framing of a charge the defence of the accused is not relevant.

An exception to above general rule is carved out in (Supreme Court of India

Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known ... on 7 December, 2017) The court reiterated that the court ordinarily has to proceed on the basis of the material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there's a material of Sterling quality, so, if the investigator or the the prosecutor withheld such type of material then the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same. In such scenario, the accused can apply to the court under section 91 CrPC to summon such material which is of Sterling quality.

4) However, according to section 228, if upon consideration of the above mentioned documents and submissions, the Court is of the opinion that the there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence:

A) Which is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, then the Court may frame charges and transfer the case for trial to the appropriate Court.

B) Which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Court shall frame a charge in writing against the accused. (Supreme Court of India

Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudharmal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2001) held that at the stage of sections 227and 228 Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.

5. If the Accused pleads guilty, then the Judge will record the plea and in his discretion convict the accused according to section 229 of the Code.

Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure consists of two parts. The first part speaks of the circumstances under which witnesses produced by the prosecution could be examined in the absence of the accused and the second part speaks of the circumstances, when such deposition can be given in evidence against the accused in any inquiry or trial for the offence with which he is charged. This procedure contemplated under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception to the principle embodied in Section 33 of the Evidence Act.

(In Jose vs. The State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 944) Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the question of treating the evidence of a witness in the committal Court as substantive evidence in trial under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, Court had recorded the fact that at the time of trial, the witness had left for Coorg and was not available and it was not possible to serve summons on him and even a non-bailable warrant issued by the Court was returned with the endorsement not available and it is under those circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge brought on record the statement made by the eye witness before the committal Court as substantive evidence and marked the same as P-25. Supreme Court negative the contention of the accused and held that the said statement had rightly been treated as an evidence during trial.