Summary punishment, commonly referred to as "summary trials," is a procedural mechanism under Indian criminal law designed for the swift and efficient disposal of certain minor offences. Governed primarily by Sections 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), summary trials aim to reduce judicial backlog and expedite justice delivery without compromising fairness or natural justice principles.
Showing posts with label summary trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label summary trial. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 March 2025
Monday, 24 June 2024
Important provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Received the assent of the Governor on 23rd April, 1999 and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part-IV, dated 24th April, 1999.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.
2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(d) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such, syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been field before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;
Print PageTuesday, 12 May 2020
Whether Commercial courts should hold Summary trial even if there are disputed questions of facts?
Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. {Para 92}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS (COMM) 1155/2018, I.As. 13597/2018 and 14309/2018
Decided On: 30.10.2019
Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Kunwer Sachdev
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Manmohan, J.
Citation: 2019 SCCOnline Del 10764
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted with the intent to improve efficiency and reduce delay in disposal of commercial cases. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner."
Sunday, 31 December 2017
Whether tenant has right to file repeated applications without a substantial cause?
No doubt that the tenant has a right to file applications but has no right to file frivolous applications. The Code of Civil Procedure except to the very limited extent set out in the Act of 2001, does not attract to proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. Only principles of natural Justice have to be complied with by the Rent Tribunal/Appellate Rent Tribunal. There is thus no conceivable reason as to why repeated applications without a substantial cause should be filed before the Rent Tribunal to defeat the object and purpose of the Act of 2001.
4. Adrian Zuckerman in his book Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles and Practice, 3 rd Edition, 2013 states that the object of adjudication is public services to enforce rights and reach the correct decisions within constraints of time and costs. (emphasis mine). Like, no person can be entitled to the best possible medical service regardless of costs, no one can be similarly entitled to best possible adjudicatory outcome without regard to the time and costs. It has been further stated that when delays in adjudication occur they entail time and expenses for the courts and consequently, the public. The opposing party and other litigants whose time before the court is resultantly reduced are the suffering party. In the aforesaid legal philosophy relating to adjudicatory mechanism of the courts with which I fully affirm, repeated miscellaneous applications in the course of trials more particularly in the course of summary trials such as under the Rent Control Act, 2001 are an unacceptable obstruction to the public service of adjudication.In the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur
(Before Alok Sharma, J.)
Smt. Kamla Devi Bohrav. Bhagvan Das Bhatia,
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2017
Decided on October 3, 2017
2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2570
Sunday, 20 August 2017
Whether finding on title to property given by small causes court can operate as res judicata?
While dealing with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 1887, this Court in Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1772, held as under:
It is also true that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge, Small Cause in this behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that in enacting Section 23 the Legislature must have had in contemplation some cases in which the discretion to return the plaint ought to be exercised in order to do complete justice between the parties.
(Emphasis added)
8. Procedure adopted in trial of the case before the Small Cause Court is summary in nature. Clause (35) of Schedule II to the Act 1887, made the Small Cause Court a court of limited jurisdiction. Certain suits are such in which the dispute is incapable of being decided in a summary manner. More so, the Small Cause Court does not possess exclusive jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is merely preferential. [Vide Ram Chandra Pandey v. Maheshwari Singh and Ors. MANU/UP/0118/1962 : AIR 1962 All 480; and Manzurul Haq and Anr. v. Hakim Mohsin Ali MANU/UP/0087/1970 : AIR 1970 All 604 (F.B.)]
9. Thus, it is evident that the finding on the issue of title recorded by the Small Cause Court does not operate as res judicata and ultimately the issue of title has to be adjudicated upon by the competent civil court. This view also stands supported by the judgments of this Court in Dhulabai etc. v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0157/1968 : AIR 1969 SC 78; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. MANU/SC/0519/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 1081; State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam MANU/SC/0305/1985 : AIR 1986 SC 794; and State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) thr. His Lrs. MANU/SC/0348/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC 652.
10. We are of the considered opinion that no illegality had been committed by the courts in refusing to frame an issue on that point and such a matter could not be investigated in proceedings before the Small Cause Court. Shri Ram Prasad, original defendant No. 1, who had entered into the contract of tenancy had died and his legal heirs, if any, had not been impleaded as parties in these petitions. Thus, it raises a doubt regarding the maintainability of the petition itself.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30648-30651/2010 (Arising out of CC Nos. 14376-14379 of 2010)
Decided On: 26.10.2010
Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon
Vs.
Irtiza Hussain and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Citation: 2010 (6) ALLMR 949 SC
Monday, 18 July 2016
When de novo trial is not permissible in case of dishonour of cheque?
Remitting the matter for de novo trial
should be exercised as a last resort and should be
used sparingly when there is grave miscarriage of
justice in the light of illegality, irregularity,
incompetence or any other defect which cannot be
cured at an appellate stage. The appellate Court
should be very cautious and exercise the discretion
judiciously while remanding the matter for de novo
trial.
60.6. While examining the nature of the trial
conducted by the Trial Court for the purpose of
determining whether it was summary trial or
summons trial, the primary and predominant test
to be adopted by the appellate Court should be
whether it was only the substance of the evidence
that was recorded or whether the complete record
of the deposition of the witness in their chief
examination, cross examination and reexamination
in verbatim was faithfully placed on
record. The appellate Court has to go through each
and every minute detail of the Trial Court record
and then examine the same independently and
thoroughly to reach at a just and reasonable
conclusion.”
5. Now, let me examine the present matter in the light of
the aforesaid observations of the apex Court.
I have seen the evidence that was adduced before the
court in respect of two witnesses examined by complainant and
their crossexamination. The proceedings were completed in four
days and perusal of the crossexamination of both these witnesses
shows that the detailed crossexamination was made by counsel
for the respondent, so also affidavit on evidence was also in detail
and in fact tenor of the evidence adduced by the complainant and
the crossexamination clearly shows that the case was tried as
summons trial. In my opinion, merely because summary form was
used for explaining the particulars and evidence was recorded only
in English and not in Marathi, one cannot come to the conclusion
that the format used in recording of the evidence in English could
decide whether a case was summary trial or summons trial. The
substance of the evidence must be seen. The evidence of two
witnesses for the complainant was recorded so also crossexamination
was also done on four various dates. Perusal of the
crossexamination shows that full dress trial was held and it is
with that understanding, both the parties joined the trial even till
statement under section 313 of Cr. P. C. also recorded.
6. I have perused the record and I find that the evidence
was recorded, crossexamination was conducted and complete trial
was held. Perusal of the record nowhere shows that, in fact,
summary trial was held.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.170/2015
Shri Sukhdeo Ganeshram Tardeja, V Shri Rajesh Dayaram S adhwani,
CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED : 09.07.2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2534
Print Page
should be exercised as a last resort and should be
used sparingly when there is grave miscarriage of
justice in the light of illegality, irregularity,
incompetence or any other defect which cannot be
cured at an appellate stage. The appellate Court
should be very cautious and exercise the discretion
judiciously while remanding the matter for de novo
trial.
60.6. While examining the nature of the trial
conducted by the Trial Court for the purpose of
determining whether it was summary trial or
summons trial, the primary and predominant test
to be adopted by the appellate Court should be
whether it was only the substance of the evidence
that was recorded or whether the complete record
of the deposition of the witness in their chief
examination, cross examination and reexamination
in verbatim was faithfully placed on
record. The appellate Court has to go through each
and every minute detail of the Trial Court record
and then examine the same independently and
thoroughly to reach at a just and reasonable
conclusion.”
5. Now, let me examine the present matter in the light of
the aforesaid observations of the apex Court.
I have seen the evidence that was adduced before the
court in respect of two witnesses examined by complainant and
their crossexamination. The proceedings were completed in four
days and perusal of the crossexamination of both these witnesses
shows that the detailed crossexamination was made by counsel
for the respondent, so also affidavit on evidence was also in detail
and in fact tenor of the evidence adduced by the complainant and
the crossexamination clearly shows that the case was tried as
summons trial. In my opinion, merely because summary form was
used for explaining the particulars and evidence was recorded only
in English and not in Marathi, one cannot come to the conclusion
that the format used in recording of the evidence in English could
decide whether a case was summary trial or summons trial. The
substance of the evidence must be seen. The evidence of two
witnesses for the complainant was recorded so also crossexamination
was also done on four various dates. Perusal of the
crossexamination shows that full dress trial was held and it is
with that understanding, both the parties joined the trial even till
statement under section 313 of Cr. P. C. also recorded.
6. I have perused the record and I find that the evidence
was recorded, crossexamination was conducted and complete trial
was held. Perusal of the record nowhere shows that, in fact,
summary trial was held.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.170/2015
Shri Sukhdeo Ganeshram Tardeja, V Shri Rajesh Dayaram S adhwani,
CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED : 09.07.2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2534
Sunday, 29 December 2013
Whether objection under O.21 R 97 of CPC is to be decided in summary manner?
The amended Rule 101 clearly indicates that "all questions including questions relating to right, title or nterest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by separate suit for this purpose, the Court shall, notiwthstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such question." The only difference in the new Rule 101 is that the executing Court itself has full jurisdiction to decide all questions of right, title or interest in the property and the order passed by the executing Court las the force and effect and is subject to the same condition as to appeal as if it was a decree and a suit is not maintainable to challenge the order. Under Rule 101 the Court has jurisdiction to decide all questions including the question of title before allowing the application, but this does not mean that the entire procedure de novo of a suit shall have to be followed. In the case of Bhagwat Narayan Dwivedi v. Kasturi a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the C.P.C. the enquiry must be summary and the proceeding must be disposed of expeditiously, bearing in mind its scope and the limited question to be decided, . In my opinion this is the right approach even today.1
Print Page
Calcutta High Court
Dilip Nag vs Smt. Lilabati Garai on 3 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 Cal 219, (1992) 1 CALLT 432 HC
Bench: K Yusuf
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Bombay HC: Magistrate can close summary criminal case under S 258 of crpc
As far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the learned Magistrate was not wholly justified because it is open to the trial Magistrate to exercise powers u/S. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In summary proceedings where the accused claims to be tried, the procedure specified in the code under Chapter XX, for the trial of summons cases is required to be followed. It is true that Chapter XX does not make any provision for discharge of the accused but S. 258 very clearly specifies that at any stage of the trial, the Magistrate may stop the proceedings. It is implicit that if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate at any stage of the proceedings, that there is no evidence or that the charge is groundless, he may forthwith stop the proceedings and acquit the accused. To this extent, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in having rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that no powers were vested in him.
Bombay High Court
Shaikh Ahmed Hussain And Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 (2) BomCR 392, 1991 CriLJ 2303, 1991 (1) MhLj 77
Bench: M Saldanha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)