Summary Trials under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
This article explores the framework, scope, and legal impact of summary trials under the BNSS, 2023, along with key judicial interpretations and rulings.
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), India's criminal justice system has entered a new phase of procedural transformation. One of the key features retained and enhanced under BNSS is the provision for summary trials, a procedural tool designed to expedite the trial process in cases involving minor offences.Summary trials are a significant mechanism to reduce judicial backlog and improve access...
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), India's criminal justice system has entered a new phase of procedural transformation. One of the key features retained and enhanced under BNSS is the provision for summary trials, a procedural tool designed to expedite the trial process in cases involving minor offences.
Summary trials are a significant mechanism to reduce judicial backlog and improve access to speedy justice.
What is a Summary Trial?
A summary trial is a simplified and expedited form of trial where procedural technicalities are minimised without compromising the principles of natural justice. The object is to ensure swift disposal of minor offences, which do not warrant elaborate procedures due to their lower gravity.
Key Features:
- Abridged procedures
- Limited record-keeping
- Time-bound examination and judgment
- Applicable to petty or low-punishment cases
Legal Framework of Summary Trials under BNSS, 2023
Relevant Sections:
Under the BNSS, 2023, Sections 283 to 288 deal with Summary Trials. These correspond to Sections 260 to 265 of the repealed CrPC, 1973.
Power to Try Summarily (Section 283)
Sub-Section (1): Offences That Must Be Tried Summarily
Despite what other provisions say, the following categories of Magistrates are empowered to mandatorily try specific offences summarily:
(a) Chief Judicial Magistrate
(b) Magistrate of the First Class
They must try in a summary way the following low-value and less serious offences:
List of Offences for Summary Trial:
- Theft under Section 303(2), 305, or 306 BNS, where the value of the property stolen does not exceed ₹20,000.
- Receiving or retaining stolen property under Section 317(2) BNS, if value ≤ ₹20,000.
- Concealing or disposing stolen property under Section 317(5), value ≤ ₹20,000.
- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means under Sections 331(2) & 331(3).
- Insult to provoke breach of peace (Section 352) and Criminal intimidation (Section 351(2) & 351(3)).
- Abetment of any of the above offences.
- Attempt to commit any of these offences, if attempt itself is punishable.
- Offences related to cattle trespass, as per Section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871.
This sub-section makes it mandatory for eligible Magistrates to try these specified minor offences in a summary manner, especially when the property value is low and offences are not grave.
Sub-Section (2): Magistrate's Discretion to Use Summary Procedure
Apart from the above-listed offences, a Magistrate may use summary procedure for any other offence, provided:
The offence is not punishable with:
- Death
- Life imprisonment
- Imprisonment for more than three years
The Magistrate must:
- Give the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard
- Record reasons in writing for choosing the summary trial route
No appeal can be filed against the Magistrate’s decision to conduct a summary trial under this clause.
Sub-Section (3): Switching to Regular Trial If Needed
If during the summary trial:
The Magistrate feels that the nature of the case requires a full trial (due to seriousness or complexity), they must stop the summary procedure.
Steps to follow:
- Recall all witnesses already examined during the summary trial.
- Re-hear the entire case as per the standard trial procedure under BNS.
This provision ensures that justice is not compromised merely for the sake of speed. If a summary trial is not suitable, a full trial must be held.
Objectives and Rationale
The rationale behind summary trials lies in the need to:
- Reduce the pendency of trivial cases in courts
- Avoid unnecessary incarceration of under-trial prisoners for petty offences
- Promote cost-effective and time-efficient litigation
- Decongest prisons and courts
Summary Trial by Magistrate of Second Class (Section 284)
Section 284 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to authorise certain Magistrates to conduct summary trials for minor offences.
Specifically, the High Court may grant summary trial powers to a Magistrate of the second class, allowing them to try offences that are punishable only with a fine or with imprisonment up to six months, with or without a fine.
This authority also extends to cases involving the abetment or attempt to commit such offences.
The purpose of this provision is to enable quicker disposal of less serious criminal cases by extending summary trial powers to lower-level Magistrates, under the supervision of the High Court.
Procedure in Summary Trials (Section 285)
Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pertains to the procedure and punishment applicable in summary trials. Summary trials are designed for minor offences where a swift and simplified legal process is desirable. Sub-section (1) of Section 285 states that the procedure to be followed in such trials will be the same as that prescribed for summons-cases under the BNSS, unless otherwise specifically provided. Summons-case procedures are less formal and are intended to ensure quicker disposal of cases. These typically involve simplified steps such as no formal charge framing, brief recording of evidence, and limited adjournments, making them suitable for cases that do not involve serious offences.
However, Section 285(1) also includes the phrase “except as hereinafter mentioned,” indicating that while the general rule is to follow the summons-case procedure, there are certain special provisions or exceptions under this chapter that may override the general rule in specific circumstances.
Sub-section (2) of Section 285 restricts the quantum of punishment that can be awarded in a summary trial. It provides that no sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months can be passed upon conviction in any case tried under this chapter. This limitation ensures that although the trial process is expedited and less formal, the rights of the accused are safeguarded by capping the sentence to a maximum of three months’ imprisonment.
This is important because summary trials do not involve the same level of procedural rigour as warrant-case trials, and thus, the law restricts the severity of punishment that can be imposed through such proceedings.
In essence, Section 285 balances the objective of quick disposal of petty cases with the necessity of protecting the accused from harsh penalties that could otherwise arise from a less elaborate judicial process. Even if the original offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prescribes a higher punishment, a magistrate conducting a summary trial cannot exceed the three-month imprisonment limit set by this section.
Record-Keeping in Summary Trials (Section 286)
Section 286 mandates that in every summary trial, the Magistrate must record specific details about the case in a format prescribed by the State Government. This written record serves as a permanent judicial record and ensures transparency, accountability, and traceability of the proceedings. It also safeguards the rights of the accused and helps in judicial review or appeal, if required.
The section lists out ten essential particulars that must be entered for each summary trial case:
(a) Serial Number of the Case
This is a unique identification number assigned to each case, ensuring it can be distinctly tracked in official records.
(b) Date of the Commission of the Offence
The actual date on which the alleged offence took place must be clearly noted.
(c) Date of the Report or Complaint
This refers to when the complaint or police report (e.g., FIR) was filed—essential for assessing delay, if any, in initiating the case.
(d) Name of the Complainant (if any)
The name of the person who lodged the complaint is recorded, which helps in identifying the source of the prosecution.
(e) Name, Parentage and Residence of the Accused
This ensures proper identification of the accused individual and helps prevent mistaken identity or wrongful implication.
(f) Offence Complained of and Offence (if any) Proved
The magistrate must record both the offence alleged in the complaint and the offence which is actually established by evidence.
For offences under Section 283(1)(i), (ii), or (iii), involving theft or stolen property, the value of the property must also be recorded.
(g) Plea of the Accused and His Examination (if any)
The plea—whether guilty or not guilty—must be noted, along with any examination of the accused under relevant provisions.
(h) Finding
This refers to the verdict—whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty.
(i) Sentence or Other Final Order
The final outcome of the trial—whether it's conviction and punishment, acquittal, discharge, or any other lawful order—must be documented.
(j) Date on which Proceedings Terminated
The date on which the case was finally disposed of must be recorded for clarity and case closure.
The purpose of Section 286 is to ensure that even in a summary trial, where the procedures are simplified and expedited, judicial discipline and due process are followed.
Judgment in Cases Tried Summarily (Section 287)
In summary trials where the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate has a duty to ensure that the process remains fair and accountable despite being faster than a regular trial.
The Magistrate must record the substance of the evidence. This means noting the essential facts and points from the evidence presented, without needing to write down every detail or exact words of witnesses.
Additionally, the Magistrate must deliver a judgment that includes a brief statement of reasons for the finding. Whether the accused is convicted or acquitted, the reasoning must be recorded to show how the conclusion was reached.
This procedure ensures transparency and protects the right to a fair trial, which is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even in quick trials, justice must be explained, not assumed.
Moreover, recording the evidence and reasons helps in appellate review, allowing higher courts to examine whether the trial was conducted properly.
In essence, this provision helps maintain a balance between speed and justice, making sure that summary trials do not compromise on fairness.
Language of Record and Judgment (Section 288)
Section 288 of the BNSS lays down the language and preparation requirements for records and judgments in summary trials. Under sub-section (1), it is mandated that every record and judgment in a summary trial must be written in the language of the Court. This ensures clarity, accessibility, and legal uniformity within the jurisdiction.
According to sub-section (2), the High Court may authorise a Magistrate conducting summary trials to have the record or judgment prepared by an officer appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
However, even if prepared by such an officer, the Magistrate must personally sign the record or judgment. This ensures judicial accountability and confirms that the decision has been reviewed and approved by the Magistrate himself.
This provision allows administrative assistance in documentation while maintaining the judicial responsibility for the accuracy and legality of the judgment.
Case Laws
[1] Bindeshwari Mandal & Anr. v. Birju Mandal (1959)
The Patna High Court rejected the view of the Additional Sessions Judge that summary trial provisions under Sections 260–264 of the CrPC (now Sections 283 to 287) violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that summary trials, meant for minor offences, are a valid and constitutionally permissible classification aimed at ensuring speedy justice. It clarified that the right to cross-examination is preserved, even if detailed recording of evidence is not required in non-appealable cases.
The Magistrate’s discretion in opting for summary procedure was held to be judicial, not arbitrary, and subject to revision. Thus, the summary trial scheme does not amount to the denial of a fair trial or violate the right to equality.
[2] Rajesh Agarwal v. State & Anr. (2010)
Delhi High Court's Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra clarified that under Sections 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Sections 283 to 288), a Magistrate conducting a summary trial retains the discretion to convert the proceedings into a summons trial if, at any stage, it appears that the nature of the case warrants a more detailed inquiry.
The Magistrate may, in such circumstances, recall and re-examine witnesses already examined and proceed to hear the case afresh following the regular procedure prescribed under the CrPC (now BNSS)
Comparison with Regular Trial
| Feature | Summary Trial | Regular Trial |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Minor, less serious | Serious, grave |
| Procedure | Simplified | Elaborate |
| Maximum Sentence | Up to 3 months | As per statute |
| Record-Keeping | Minimal | Detailed |
| Time Taken | Short | Longer |
| Cross-Examination | Possible, but limited | Full |
Conclusion
The provision for summary trials under BNSS, 2023, is a welcome continuation of procedural simplification first introduced under the CrPC. It holds the potential to revolutionise the justice delivery system by offering speedy, economical, and efficient disposal of minor criminal cases. However, its success hinges on judicial prudence, access to legal aid, and procedural safeguards. If implemented judiciously, summary trials can reduce the burden on the judiciary while preserving the right to a fair trial.
References
[1] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[2] Bindeshwari Mandal & Anr. v. Birju Mandal, AIR 1959 Pat 46
[3] Rajesh Agarwal v. State & Anr, Crl. M.C. No. 1996/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 7672/2010
[4] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Karan Patel
Karan Patel is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University, with a specialization in Civil Law and Procedural Law. As a dedicated legal scholar, his work focuses on exploring the nuances of civil justice systems and procedural frameworks through in-depth research and writing.