Distinction Between Summary and Regular Trial Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

29 Pages Posted: 24 Mar 2012

Date Written: March 22, 2012

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to distinctly state the two trials. One is Summary, the other is Regular. The object is to avoid wastage of time but the object is never to defeat the ends of justice. The Complainant as well as the accused both have their rights which are given to them by law and those rights are to be respected and fully protected without causing denial of the right of each other.

In a democratic set up the rule of law is to prevail. Irregularity is not the same as illegality. The formal is curable the later is not. hence where illegality occurs the trial has no sanctity to remain in the field. At all stages there must be lawfulness present in the process. A building constructed on unlawfulness falls to the ground with no remorse for its demolition. Trial means fair trial. Fair trial is not only lawful but also with propriety and correctness. The paper highlights various similarities and dissimilarities among the Summary and Regular trials, such as, SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SUMMARY AND REGULAR TRIALS are:

- In both the charge is framed. - In both the accused is examined. - In both the evidence is taken. - In both the record is maintained. - In both the order is announced. - In both the Competent Magistrate conducts the proceedings. - In both kinds of trial the reasons for the findings are to be given. - Provisions of sections 191, 243, 342 and 250 apply to summary trials equally with ordinary trials. - In both trials illegality vitiates the whole trial but irregularity does not.

DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN SUMMARY AND REGULAR TRIALS are: - Summary trial is simple while Regular trial is complex. - In summary trial procedure is short while in regular trial it is full-fledged. - In summary trial under section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in cases where no appeal lies, the Magistrate or Bench of Magistrate need not record the evidence of the witnesses or frame a formal charge; while in regular trial recording of evidence of the witnesses and framing of formal charge is must. - In summary cases recording evidence is not necessary only gist suffices while in Regular trial it is compulsory to record the evidence at full. - In summary trial where appeal lies the Magistrate must preserve the original notes of evidence so that the Appellate or Revisional Court may see the error while in Regular trial the whole evidence is to be recorded with full opportunity to cross examines and thereafter even the arguments on both sides are to be heard by the Magistrate. - In summary trial only substance of the witnesses evidence is to be stated generally and not a separate record of each witness is to be kept but in the regular trial each witnesses deposition’s separate record is to be made. The expression substance of the evidence implies a judicious selection of précis of that part of the evidence which is really material.

The question whether the substance of the evidence has been sufficiently recorded in a particular case depends upon a consideration of the nature and relevance of the various pieces of evidence given in the case having regard tot the issues raised or involved in the case.

Suggested Citation

Mughal, Munir Ahmad, Distinction Between Summary and Regular Trial Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (March 22, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2027451 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2027451

Munir Ahmad Mughal (Contact Author)

Punjab University Law College ( email )

(Res.)125-B, Judicial Colony, Lahore
Lahore, Punjab 54000
Pakistan
042-35304847 (Phone)
042-35311498 (Fax)

Superior Law College

(Res.)125-B, Judicial Colony
Lahore, Punjab 54000
Pakistan
0092-42-35304847 (Phone)
0092-42-35311498 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
2,511
Abstract Views
32,721
rank
7,835
PlumX Metrics