(1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and. Kashmir: Provided that the. Cr.P.C. The Code of Criminal Procedure, (Extracts). Act No V of CONTENTS. CHAPTER 1. 1. Short title. Commencement. 4. Definitions. CAP. LAWS OF KENYA. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. CHAPTER Revised Edition . Published by the National Council for Law Reporting.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PROCEDURE OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS. Act Nos,. 15 of 24 of 36 of 68 of 52 of viding a new sub-section 4A of Section 29 of the Code in order to avvid the delay ? 4. Public Prosecutor: Explanation to provide to Section 24(6). Do you agree. Report of the Law Commission of India on the “Code of Crimi- permission under section of the Criminal Procedure Code to the.
Sections to both inclusive relate exclusively to the procedure of trials in cases initiated on police report whereas sections to , both inclusive, relate exclusively to the procedure in cases initiated otherwise than on police report. Section relates to both. A case instituted upon a police report means a case initiated on a charge-sheet submitted by the police officer in a cognizable case. Any other case initiated in any other manner is a case initiated otherwise-than on a police report.
Before proceeding with the case, the Magistrate has to ascertain as to whether the copies of documents require to be supplied to the accused according to Section have been complied with.
If they have not been so complied, the Magistrate should get them supplied and then proceed with the case. If a warrant case is tried as a summons case, the trial vitiates.
Section — When accused shall be discharged If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section and making such examination 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 the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
Under Section , Magistrate has the power to discharge the accused if upon the consideration of the documents sent to him under Section and the examination of the accused, if any, he thinks necessary and after giving an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused being heard, he considers that the charge against the accused is groundless.
If on the consideration of the documents and after the examination of the accused and after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this chapter with such Magistrate is competent to try and which he can adequately punish, he shall frame in writing a charge.
The examination of the accused under sections and is meant only to get explanation from the accused of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the documents sent up under Section It is discretionary with the Magistrate to examine the accused. It is not obligatory to examine an accused. The Magistrate has to record reasons for discharging the accused. Failure to record the reasons makes the order illegal. The recording of reasons for discharge is essential so that the Higher Courts may be able to know as to be of opinion that the charge should not be framed and the accused should be discharged.
Section — Framing of charge If, upon such consideration examination and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, 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. Then, the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
A Magistrate shall frame a charge if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the offence is triable under this chapter, the Magistrate is competent to try it and the accused can be adequately punished by him.
A Magistrate can frame a charge in a case where is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, that is to say, The offence must be punishable to imprisonment for a period exceeding two years.
If the offence which appears to be triable as a summon case, no charge should be framed, though the accused may be tried without framing any charge as a summons case, similarly if the case is triable as a Sessions trial, no charge can be framed by the Magistrate. A Magistrate can frame a charge under Section only when he is competent to try the case. A Magistrate may not be competent to try the case if the offence has been committed beyond the local jurisdiction of his Court.
The charge framed shall be read over and explained to the accused and he should be asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Charge shall be read over the accused and not the pleader. It has been held that the charge may be explained to the counsel of the accused and he may be allowed to plead or not to plead on behalf of the accused. But this view is not correct.
The charge has to be explained to the accused and the accused has to plead guilty or not. Section — Conviction on plea of guilty If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, on his discretion, convict him thereon. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate should record his plea in his own words and clearly. The Magistrate has discretion to convict an accused on his plea of guilty. But the plea of guilty must be clear.
It is admission of all the facts on which the charge is founded and also the admission of guilt in respect of them. When the accused pleaded not guilty at the time of charge being read over to him and the Magistrate proceeded to take evidence but afterwards the accused accepted the guilt, it was held that he could not be convicted under Section The plea of the accused must be recorded as much as possible in the very words of the accused so that the higher courts may determine whether the plea of the accused really amounted to a confession of the guilt.
Section — Evidence for prosecution If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.
The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing, On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination When the accused does not plead guilty or claims to be tried or even on plea of guilty the Magistrate does not convict him, he shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
It is for the benefit of the accused that this provision for fixing a date has been provided. If the Magistrate after the statement of accused not pleading guilty, straight way proceeds with the case, the accused may be prejudiced and such proceeding certainly makes the trial illegal. On the date so fixed, the Magistrate is bound to take all the evidence by the prosecution.
The provision of Section 3 is mandatory. There can be no doubt that the Magistrate is bound to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. A Magistrate is not competent to acquit the accused without taking all the evidence which is offered by the prosecution. If he does acquit without taking all the evidence, the order is illegal. Under section 3 which is in very wide term, the Magistrate is bound to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
There is ample authority in support of the view that if in the course of the trial, the prosecution thinks it necessary to file additional documents or statements of witnesses on which they proposes to rely, the non-supply of copies does not prevent them from filing the documents or examining the witnesses.
It is not the bounden duty of the court to compel the attendance of the witnesses suo moto and examine them under Section , even if the prosecution does not care to produce them. The court may help the prosecution in securing the attendance of the witnesses. The prosecution has to give the list of the witnesses and pray for issue of summons and the summons being infructuous, the prosecution has to approach the Court for warrant etc.
If the prosecution fails to take steps and does not produce evidence, the court may close the prosecution evidence and proceed further and may acquit the accused. The term examination means the examination, cross-examination and re-examination. Consequently, when a witness is examined by the prosecution on the date fixed for taking evidence, the witness has to be cross-examined by the accused. But in suitable cases the Magistrate may postpone the cross-examination of a witness who has been examined by the prosecution till other witness or witnesses have been examined.
This provision is for the benefit of the accused to give him opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses in continuation. Section — Evidence for defence 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.
If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless 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 and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under Sub-Section 2 , require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. The 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.
Section — When accused shall be discharged If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. Section — Procedure where accused is not discharged. If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, 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 then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under Sub-Section 3 he shall be required to stale, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken.
If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination if any , they shall be discharged. The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken and after cross-examination and re-examination if any , they shall also be discharged. Section — Evidence for defence. The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and the provisions of section shall apply to the case.
Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, hut does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section or section , he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.
Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of Sub-Section 7 of section and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate may, after he has convicted the said accused, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon: Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Magistrate nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under Sub-Section 2.
Section — Absence of complainant When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.
Section — Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause. If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one or, if such person is not present direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.
The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that compensation to such amount not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them.
The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under Sub-Section 2 further order that, in default of payment, the person ordered to pay such compensation shall under go simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days. When any person is imprisoned under Sub-Section 3 , the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code 45 of shall, so far as may be, apply.
No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him: Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. A complainant or informant who has been ordered under Sub-Section 2 by a Magistrate of the second class to pay compensation exceeding one hundred rupees, may appeal from the order as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate.
When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under Sub-Section 6 , the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.
The provisions of this section apply to summons-cases as well as to warrant cases. SECTION Tender of pardon to accomplice The purpose of this section is to grant pardon to an accused where a serious offence is alleged to have been committed by many persons so that with the help of the evidence of such accused, the offenders may be punished. The pardon can be granted when the offences are triable by the Court of Session or by a court of special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the offences punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or with a more severe sentence nor exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
The provision of this section cannot be enlarged. Pardon can only be tendered with respect to the categories of offences mentioned in the section and to none others. The jurisdiction to tender pardon is strictly limited to the offences mentioned in the section. The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate or the Magistrate of first class may grant pardon with the only difference that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate may grant pardon in any case whether they have taken cognizance of it or not.
They may grant pardon at any stage of investigation or inquiry into or trial of the offence even if the trial is proceeding before the Court of Session. But the Magistrate of first class can grant pardon only in the cases which he is enquiring or trying and he can grant pardon only at any stage of the inquiry or trial.
A Magistrate of First Class cannot grant pardon at the stage of the investigation, nor can do so in a case which is not before him for inquiry or trial. The only conditions required for granting pardon are that the accused should make a thorough and complete disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge throwing light upon the offence or the offences about which he promises to give evidence.
The Magistrate granting pardon has power to add any condition. The Magistrate may make a condition that if the approver fails to make a full disclosure of the facts, he may be prosecuted.
It is discretionary with the Magistrate to grant pardon. But he should exercise the power in exceptional circumstances. If no approver is examined as a witness the other accused will go free, pardon may be granted. When there are a number of witnesses, of fact, the pardon should not be granted to an accused.
In any case no pardon should be granted to the main offender. It often happens that the police does not charge sheet one of the accused and examines him as a witness. The evidence of such a witness is not irrelevant, but such course should be deprecated. The Magistrate granting pardon shall explain all the conditions to the accused.
He has to make it clear to the accused that if he does not fulfill the conditions and if he conceals any material fact or if he tells anything false, he may be tried. The Magistrate shall record his reasons and should also mention as to whether the pardon was accepted.
The Magistrate has also to supply a copy of this procedure to the accused if asked for. If the manner of pardon is substantially complied with, though it is not very regularly recorded, the procedure is legal.
Before an accused can be examined against a co-accused not only that a pardon should be tendered to him, but it is necessary that he should accept it. If the pardon is not accepted by a person, his position remains that of an accused. The acceptance of pardon need not be in writing.
It may be evidenced by the conduct. A person can be said to have accepted a pardon only when he sticks to the conditions imposed. The Magistrate tendering pardon has to record the reason for granting pardon. The reasons that the accused is granted pardon so that evidence may be available against the other accused is a good reason.
The giving of the reason is not a condition precedent for granting a pardon. It is only a matter of procedure and the failure to record reason is only an irregularity which does not affect the pardon.
It has been held that recording of reason is mandatory provision. If the reasons are not recorded the order of Magistrate can be quashed. The ground of granting a pardon is not the extent of complicity of a person in the offence.
The fact that the person concerned does not implicate himself to the same extent as he does others is no bar in granting a pardon. The pardon granted is not limited to the offences for which the trial is being held, rather it extends to all the offences which were so connected with the offence for which the pardon was tendered.
The approver on acceptance of the pardon is required to make a complete disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge bearing upon the offence or offences as to which he gave evidence. Pardon protects the offender from being prosecuted for the offence for which pardon is granted. In some cases pardon once granted and accepted cannot be withdrawn.
If the person to whom pardon is tendered has not been released on bail prior to granting him pardon, he shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
The provision to keep him in custody is mandatory and neither the Magistrate nor the Judge nor even the High Court can grant him bail.
Custody, under this section, means a judicial custody. A person who is granted pardon has not to be sent to police custody. He has to be kept in judicial lock-up. Even if the pardon has been refused at one stage, a further request can be entertained and considered only if fresh or additional facts are placed by the parties concerned.
A tender of pardon and its acceptance is a matter entirely between court concerned and the person to whom it is made. The other person against whom an investigation or enquiry is going on in connection with the same offence have no right to object to the making the tender of pardon.
Under the old Code, it was held by the Delhi High Court that the order tendering the pardon was an administrative order and so it was not revisable. This case was over ruled and the order was revisable. Under the present law, The order tendering the pardon and order declining to tender pardon are interlocutory orders and so no revision lies. There are two ways open to the prosecution to examine a co-accused against the others without granting him pardon.
The public prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution against that accused under Section , get him discharged and then examine him. The second course open to the prosecution is to separate the case of that particular accused from that of the other accused and then examine him in the case against the other accused.
The police carrying investigation may make an accused a witness by giving him assurance that he would not be prosecuted. A person liable to be summoned under Section is a competent witness if not summoned as an accused under that Section The release of the approver on bail by the High Court does neither affect pardon granted to him nor the trial. SECTION Power to direct tender of pardon At any time after commitment of a case, but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.
SECTION Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon The prosecution of an approver can be started only on the certificate of the public prosecutor to the effect that the person has not complied with the conditions of the pardon by willfully concealing anything essential fact or by giving false evidence.
The sole basis for the prosecution of the approver is the certificate of the public prosecutor. The provision of this section pre-supposes that the pardon which had been tendered was accepted and thereafter the approver has willfully concealed anything essential or has given false evidence. There must be acceptance of the pardon and the person must be examined.
If the pardon has not been accepted, the trial of the approver without certificate is illegal and it is also illegal to try him with other accused. The approver may be tried for the offence in respect of which pardon has been tendered, or the other offence which might have been committed in connection with the same matter and for giving false evidence.
The trial of a person who has not complied with the condition of the provision must not be held jointly with other accused of the case, but if the pardon has not been accepted by him, he may be jointly tried. The trial for perjury cannot be started without the sanction of the High Court. The High Court is not bound to accord the sanction in each and every case. The High Court before granting sanction should consider all the circumstances in the case and decide the main question whether the previous statement or the confession was true and voluntary.
If it is of opinion that the previous statement and confession was true, the sanction may be accorded. If the statement at the time of pardon is not true, the inference may be that the statement was obtained by force and sanction is not to be granted. A consolidating code is that code which consolidates the whole law-statutory, customary and precedent-on a particular subject and declares it. The Transfer of Property Act, belongs to this category. A code may be both creative and consolidating.
It may make new law as well as consolidate the existing law on a particular subject. Hindu Law is such type of law. When a statute is initially enacted by the legislature and it contains all the relevant elements of legislation, it is called principal statute. As mentioned in the Wikipedia, code means, 1 a set of rules which are accepted as general principles, or a set of written rules which state how people in a particular organization or country should behave.
So, code means the whole body of law; whether of a complete system of law e. Legal Code: A legal code is a body of law written and enforced by a state. In addition to a body of substantive law, a legal code also specifies certain court procedures and rules of evidence.
Criminal Code: On the other hand, criminal law is the body of law that defines criminal offences, regulates the apprehension, charging, and trial of suspected offenders, and fixes punishment for convicted persons. Substantive criminal law defines particular crimes, and procedural law establishes rules for the prosecution of crime. Criminal law in most jurisdictions is divided into two fields: Criminal procedure is entirely regulated by the statute which is mainly guided by the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC.
Criminal law in the United States, Canada, Australia, Bangladesh and many other commonwealth countries is based on English common law. The British established colonies and imposed their criminal law upon the inhabitants of those colonies. However, these, and other legal systems, are also influenced by early written codes, such as the Roman Twelve Tables.
There was no criminal law in uncivilized society. Every man was liable to be attacked in his person or property at any time by any one. The person attacked either succumbed or overpowered his opponent. A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, a life for a life was the forerunner of criminal justice. As time advanced, the injured person agreed to accept compensation, instead of killing his adversary.
Subsequently, a sliding scale came into existence for satisfying ordinary offences. Such a system gave birth to archaic criminal law. For a long time, the application of these principles remained with the parties themselves, but gradually this function came to be performed by the State.
The germs of criminal jurisprudence came into existence in India from the time of Manu. In the category of crimes Manu has recognized assault, theft, robbery, false evidence, slander, criminal breach of trust, cheating, adultery and rape. In that period the king administered justice himself, and, if busy, the matter was entrusted to a judge.
Later on the Criminal law of India was regulated by the Islamic sharia law as it was conquered by the Muslim Sultans and Mughals. Criminal Procedure Code: Construction of the Criminal Procedure Code: The Code of Criminal Procedure id a procedural penal statute and it provides for machinery for punishment and prevention of offences. Since it is a penal statute in nature, it must be construed strictly as opposed to liberal interpretation.
This means in case of ambiguity, this Code should be interpreted in favor of the individual or subject. By the late nineteenth century, the production of legal codes in India had become so prolific that many administrators questioned its expense and utility.
The First Law Commission was composed of T. Macaulay as Chairman and four members. The members of the Commission prepared a draft Pena Code which they submitted to Lord Auckland, the Governor-General, on 2nd May, which did not become law till The first Criminal Code of was amended in which is known as 2nd Criminal Code. The 3rd Criminal Code was made in changing the previous one. Thereafter 16 amendments were made to it and later on a Select committee was constituted. Based on the report of the select committee the existing Criminal Procedure Code was passed in the year of In a severe change was made to it based on the recommendation of a Joint-Committee.
A great change was made to the CrPC in the year of after the independence of Bangladesh. Recently in the Government has enacted an amended Criminal Code as a part of its commitment to the separation of judiciary. Contents of CrPC at a Glance: There were sections in the original Code but afterwards a lot of sections have been repealed such as sections — to , to , 2, 3, 23, 24, 26, 27, A, 30, 34, A, , , , , , , A, A, B, , , , , , A, , to , , to , , to , A, A, A, , , , , , , to In the Code there are five schedules of which schedule-1 was repealed.
Schedule-2 gives a chart of offences; punishments; by whom it will be adjudged; nature of offences etc. Schedule-3 states the ordinary jurisdictions of the Magistrates. Schedule-4 states about the extra-ordinary jurisdictions of the Magistrates and schedule-5 gives various forms of summon, warrant, proclamation of arrest, bail bond etc. The Code deals with the constitution of criminal courts, classifies them, defines their powers, lays down the procedure for criminal proceedings, inquiries or trials, prescribes the duties of the police in arresting offenders and investigating offences and also contains provisions for their prevention.
Is CrPC a Code? Though termed as a code, the CrPC is basically a consolidating and amending Act and not a codifying statute. In strict and proper sense a Code is compilation not of just existing statutes, but also of much of the unwritten law like customs, judicial decisions etc. On the other hand, consolidated legislation purports to collect only pre- existing statutes on a particular subject. It does not include common law or customary rules and judicial precedent.
CrPC is not a code in the proper sense of the term. This is more fully clear from the long title of the Act. V of ], the long title, i. Adjective of procedural criminal law provides machinery for criminal cases and punishment of offenders against substantive criminal laws, e. However, CrPC is not the only procedural law for punishing offenders. It is the main general law of procedure for criminal proceedings but any other statute or special law may determine aspects of procedural law.
Object of the CrPC, The CrPC though mainly an adjective or procedural law deals with many other aspects: For instance, section creates a separate offence in case of false, frivolous and vexatious accusations in cases tried by Magistrates.
In addition to offences created by sections and in the Penal Code, section of the CrPC creates another offence of false accusation and punishment has been prescribed in that very section also. Likewise, section A of the CrPC crates another offence with punishment for non-attendance by a witness in obedience to summons.
If any witness fails, without just excuses, to appear before which the witness is to appear may try him summarily and sentence him to fine not exceeding two hundred taka and fifty. Thus although CrPC is generally a procedural law deals with matters of substantive law also. The object, purpose, or design of all procedural law is to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities.
It extends to other proceedings of Criminal or Quasi-Criminal nature. Where the accused alleges and shows substantial prejudice caused to him the compliance of law is not substantial. Justice is to be shown to have been done according to law and it is not sacrificed at the altar of the procedure. Trial is neither an investigation nor an inquiry. Investigation is the power vested in the police and inquiry is the power vested in a Magistrate.
It is a stage prior to trial. Trial begins when the charge is framed, read out and explained to the accused and his plea is recorded. Trial of the criminal cases is one of the basic fields of application of the CrPC, The Code deals with the proceedings of trial in the criminal cases.
Under the Code the nature of the procedure of trial of these two courts are different. Trial procedures of the two courts are discussed as under. Trial in the Magistrate Court Trial in the Magistrate court takes two forms, which are discussed in two different chapter of the CrPC, About these two forms of trial in the Magistrate court are discussed as under.
Emperor 34 Cr. Regular trial in the Magistrate court is the regular procedure of trial in the Magistrate court. Though the regular trail ordinarily starts with the framing of the charge but before the framing of the charge there is a pre-trial hearing stage.
Before framing of the charge the Magistrate has power to discharge the accused if he becomes satisfied, after 7 considering the record of the case; 7 examining the documents submitted with it; and 7 hearing the prosecution and the accused. The provision enjoins the Court to discharge the accused when there is no ground or proceeding with the case but the order must record reasons thereof. But when the Court framed charge it is not required of the Court to record reason.
Before passing an order of discharge the Magistrate should first take into consideration, 7 In police case, the prosecution case as given in FIR, charge-sheet, statements of witnesses record by police and the documents produced including medical certificate; 7 In complaint case, the petition of complaint, statement of witnesses recorded during judicial enquiry, report of inquiry officer and medical certificate if produced.
Case Study: State-Discharge of the accused when no prima facie case is made out from the materials on record-The FIR discloses the initial intention to deceive and the learned judges found prima facie case disclosed from the allegation made in the FIR and as such found no ground at this stage to quash the proceedings.
Ershad vs. The State-This provision casts a duty on Judge to discharge accused when there is no ground for proceeding with the case and his order must record reasons thereof. The Court has jurisdiction to pass an order of discharge if it was satisfied that the charge was groundless for which it was to give reasons but if it framed charge it was not required of the court to record reasons. The formal stage of the trial actually starts by framing of the charge.
The Magistrate before taking any evidence but considering the provision of section A CrPC shall frame charge. A charge under this section should allege all that is necessary to constitute the offence charged.
On the fulfillment of these conditions, charge should be framed. A finding about commission of offence must be based on evidence. Billal Hossain-The trail court has a wide power to frame charges and this cannot be interfered with by Revisional Court by way of giving direction for altering a charge or framing charge Ref: A very important feature of the trial procedure is that the chance of admission of truth by the accused.
After the framing of the charge the Magistrate shall ask the accused whether he admits his guilt or not. And if the accused admit his guilt the Magistrate may convict him according to law. A plea of guilty is an admission of all the facts on which the charge is founded as well as an admission of guilt in respect of them. It is important that the exact words of the accused, as nearly as possible, should be recorded. Magistrates have to remember that a conviction on admission is not final.
It is open to revision and the superior court has to be satisfied that what was thought to be an admission was really so and for that purpose the must be recorded in own words of the accused.
The Magistrate has discretion to accept the plea of guilty or not to accept. Accused cannot be convicted on his admission unless the facts admitted amount to an offence. State-He alleged admission of guilt was not recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused.
Section CrPC is mandatory, the violation of which causes prejudice to the accused and is not curable under section CrPC. The State-Violate on of the mandatory requirements of Section in recording the individual statements of the accused either in their language or in words as nearly as expressed by them is not curable by section Conviction and sentence are not sustainable in law accordingly Ref: Satyapda Biswas-Conviction is legal solely on the confession of the accused.
If the accused himself admits his guilt there is no necessary to enter into the whole gamut of a legal trial. If the Magistrate dose not convicts the accused after the admission of truth by him or if the accused does not make such admission, the next step the Magistrate is to take is to hear the case and take and examine the evidence.
Here under this provision it is merely said that the Magistrate shall hear the complainant. It does not say that the complainant is to be examined. Non-examination of the complainant does not vitiate the proceedings.
Moreover, the Magistrate is bound to hear the accused and his witnesses. The Magistrate has no discretion in this matter. The right of cross-examination is exercised under this procedure. Sadiq Javeed vs. The State-Magistrate is competent to abandon subsequently a defense witness who though considered by him to be unnecessary, was nevertheless summoned.
The consequence of most of the trial is either acquittal or conviction and sentencing. These are very important provisions of the trial procedure under the Magistrate court. Acquittal is ordered by the Magistrate when the Magistrate does not find any guilt against the accused. But it is not open to the Magistrate to refuse to examine the witnesses produced by the complainant and the acquittal of the accused, without recording any evidence is clearly illegal.
A Magistrate, who does not find the accused guilty, must record an order of acquittal. No order of discharge can be passed under this provision. On the other hand if the Magistrate finds the accused guilty and convicts the accused, he is bound to pass some sentence.
The State-Accused presumed to be innocent of the charge till guilt is established by legal evidence. No particular number of witnesses legally required to prove the offence.
Mobaswir Ali and Others-The prosecution having not taken any steps the learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the respondents under section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Abdul Kader and Others- Release of accused under section is not an acquittal-When there are case and counter case over the same occurrence both the cases should be tried simultaneously by the same court. Proceedings stopped under section CrPC can well be revived since the release thereunder is neither acquittal nor discharge as provided under section CrPC.
Summary Trial in the Magistrate Court: Summary trial by dispensing with unnecessary formalities of delay. Though the object of summary trial is to shorten the record and the work of the court but it is not intended to deprive the accused person of any of the rights given by law. The proceedings are to be conducted with the same procedure as in the regular, perhaps with more care so that the accused may not entertain any apprehension of failure of justice on account of the procedure.
The responsibility in the case of summary trial is very great. The court will take care that the procedure is not made more summary than is laid down. Summary trials are improper in serious cases. Every Magistrate cannot try summarily. According the provisions of the chapter the following types of Magistrate can try summarily, 7 the Metropolitan Magistrate; 7 any Magistrate of the first class; and 7 any Bench of Magistrates invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the first class.
According to the provision of chapter XXII of the CrPC, , cases in which a Magistrate exercises the special powers conferred by section 33A cannot be tried in a summary way. All kinds of cases cannot be tried summarily. The cases which can be tried summarily are stated as below: Provided that no case in which a Magistrate exercises the special powers conferred by section 33A shall be tried in a summary way.
Unlike regular trials the court in summary trials has to simplify and shorten trial procedure by dispensing with the recording of evidence and not allowing many adjournments. In summary trials the Magistrate has to follow all the steps of a regular trial but the difference between the two is that is summary trial of offences where no appeal lies the Magistrate need not have to record the evidence of the witnesses or frame a formal charge.
On the other hand, in case of summary trials of offences where appeal lies, the Magistrate has to record the substance of evidence. In summary trials the following particular is needed to be enter in the form as the Government may direct: Though there is nothing in Chapter XXII of the CrPC, limiting the amount of fine that may be imposed in a summary trial, but there is limitation of imposing of imprisonment under this chapter.
According to the provision of this chapter, the limitation of imprisonment shall not exceed 2 years. Trial is the main procedure of commencing a case. A trial can be both regular and summary.
Both of the trial procedures have some similarities as well as some distinctions. The distinctions between regular and summarily trial is stated as under, Regular Trial Subject Matter Summary Trial A trial is the examination of As to definition Summary trial means short a case, civil or criminal, trials avoiding the regular before a judge or Magistrate lengthy procedure.
Regular trial is complex. As to simplicity Summary trial is simple. Regular trial is full-fledged. As to the length of the Summary trial is short. Magistrate need not record the evidence of the witness. In regular trial framing of the As to the framing of the In summary trial, in case charge is must, whether charge where no appeal lies where no appeal lies the appeal lies or not.
Magistrate or Bench of Magistrate need not frame the charge. Regular trial is the genus of As to the genus and species Summary trial is the species summary trial. Regular trial can be tried by As to triable by Judge or Summary trial can only be both judge and Magistrate. Magistrate tried by the Magistrate.
In regular trial it is As to the recording of the In summary trial cases compulsory to record the evidence recording of the evidence is evidence in full. In regular trial reasons both As to giving of the reasons In summary trail reasons for for finding and sentencing for the sentence the sentence are not to be are to be given by the given. Regular trial is the formal As to the formality Summary trial is not formal procedure for trial.
Regular trial is the regular As to the regularity of the Summary trial is the special procedure of trial system. All types of Magistrate can As to the triable types of Only the specific types of try regular trial.
Magistrate magistrate under sec. Sections enunciated As to the sections postulating Sections enunciated the procedures of regular the procedure the procedure relating to trial. Any kinds of case can be As to the triable offence Only the offences specified tried in regular trial.
The limitation of power As to the section limiting the The limitation of power of sentence of imprisonment in power of imprisonment sentencing imprisonment in regular trial is stated in summary trial is enunciated section 32 of the CrPC, A Magistrate of 1st class in As to the extent of In summary trial the regular trial can impose imprisonment magistrate can only impose imprisonment which may imprisonment which may extent to 5 years. The procedure of investing As to procedure of investing The procedure of investing powers to the Bench of powers to Bench powers to the Bench of Magistrate is stated in sec.
Unlike in the Magistrate Court there are formal opening, argument and closing of every case in Session Court. Definition of P. The duty of P. P is to represent not the police but the State and this duty should be discharged by him fairly and fearlessly and with a full sense of the responsibility that attaches to his position. After framing of the charge, a complaint case becomes a State case and therefore it has to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor. P leads and guides the advocate for a private party, no objection can be entertained.
Aminul Huq-Public Prosecutor includes Asst. Public Prosecutor and any other person who conducts a Prosecution under the direction of Public Prosecutor.
Opening of the Case: At the first hearing the P. P shall open the case by describing the charge and stating the evidence on which the prosecution relies to prove the charge. In a criminal trial it is of great importance for the accused to know as to what the exact prosecution case, is in opening the case the Prosecutor can only state all that is proposed or intended to prove so that the Judge may see if there is any discrepancy between the opening statement and the evidence adduced.
Accused when to be Discharged: As like the trial before the Magistrate Court, in the trial before the Court of Session the Judge can discharge the accused if he finds no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. There is no scope for examination of any witness, but there is scope for both sides to argue their case in favor of framing charge or discharge. The Judge shall also record reasons of discharge. The Judge is not bound to pronounce a definite judgment on the question whether the accused is guilty or not.
Lokman vs. State-The accused has no scope to have any shelter under section C of the Code since a case has already been disclosed against him. Framing of the Charge: The same provisions like the trial in the Magistrate Court, is applicable in the Session Court as regard to framing of the charge. But here as the trial procedure in Session Court is more formal than the trial in the Court of Magistrate, the charge shall frame more formally. The charge-sheet to which 12 Sec. CrLJ It should be drawn up and considered with extreme care and caution, so that accused may have no doubt whatever as to the offences to which he is called upon to answer and the Judge of the Appellate Court also may have no doubt upon the matter.
Auranga K. Hemayet Uddin-Statements made under sections and CrPC are documents on record within the meaning of section D. Plea and Conviction: It has been stated before that a very important feature of the trial procedure is that the chance of admission of truth by the accused. After the framing of the charge the Judge shall ask the accused whether he admits his guilt or not. And if the accused admit his guilt the Judge may convict him according to law.
It is upon to the court to accept or not, the plea of guilt. Conviction on a plea of guilty is not sustainable when the facts alleged or proved by the prosecution do not amount to an offence. A plea of guilty should not be accepted in capital sentences. Where an accused person pleads guilty, the court should record his confession and forthwith convict him therein. Accused may pleaded guilty or remain silent or may claim to be tried.
So, after fixing date for the hearing and taking evidence from the prosecution, the Judge shall take the evidence the prosecution may produce as to support the allegation against the accused. The court may permits the cross examination of any witness.
But it is a discretionary power of the court. Taheruddin vs. Abul Kashem-After a charge is framed and the accused pleads not guilty to the charge and claims to be tried, the Session Court shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
The Sessions Judge may, on the application of the prosecution issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other things under section F CrPC.
Acquittal order by Sessions Judge invalid when such order is passed on the ground of PWs absence on the date of trial. When after taking the evidence, examining the accused, hearing the prosecution and the defense point, if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to prove that the accused is guilty, the court shall record an order of acquittal.
This provision applies only where there is no evidence, and would not cover cases where the court considers that the charge is itself, improper. Defense, Arguments and Judgment: If the accused does not acquitted under the mentioned provision, he shall enter upon his defense, and shall provide his witnesses or documents if any , and the prosecution shall sum up his case and the accused or his advocate shall be entitled to reply.
After hearing the arguments and points of law the Judge shall give his judgment. Both the terms discharge and acquittal has been used in the trial procedure of the Magistrate and Session Court.
Both the terms are distinct from each other. The distinctions between the two are as under, Discharge Subject Matter Acquittal Discharge means to relieve As to definition Acquittal means the legal and an accused person from formal certification of the allegation and to release him innocence of a person who from custody for not prove has been charged with a the allegation through crime.
Discharge occurs before the As to taking place Acquittal occurs at time of start of actual trial. An order of discharge is not As regard to judgment An order of acquittal is judgment judgment. A man who is discharged As regard to charge again A man who has been may again be charged with acquitted cannot be put on the same offence.