 Ramkumar sir, why is that the stage of commencement of the trial relevant in criminal proceedings? Yes, the other day we examined the question as to when does the trial start in a summons case. In a summons case, as you all know, there is no framing of charge. Therefore, there is no discharge also. In a summons case, the assignment accused appears or is brought before the court, before the magistrate. The substance of accusation is read over to the accused. That is the particulars of the offense is read over to the accused. And he can plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on his plea, the trial can start. That is what we saw in summons case. Today we will examine the question as to when does the trial start in a warrant case. Now before examining what exactly is a warrant case, let us see why this commencement of trial? Why at all the question of commencement of trial in a warrant case, in a criminal proceedings? That is because after the commencement of trial in certain cases, there cannot be certain things done. For example, recording of confession under section 154 of the RPC. The accused can confess before the magistrate. Now he can walk into the magistrate court and say that I want to confess. I have an accused in such and such case. Investigation is in progress. Kindly allow me to confess. He need not be sponsored by the police, unlike in the case of a witness. So the accused can make a confession. Likewise, the magistrate can record the confession of a witness or a victim under section 164 of the RPC. But both these things cannot be done once the trial has commenced. Therefore commencement of trial have got importance, meaning. And then test identification parade. After the accused is arrested. Supposing what is why a test identification parade? A test identification parade is necessary because the victim or the witness did not have any previous acquaintance with the culprit. He was seeing the culprit for the first time at the time of occurrence. Therefore law insists that the police should conduct a test identification parade. Test identification parade is not conducted by the police. It is conducted before a magistrate. Now test identification parade cannot be conducted after the commencement of trial. It can be done only during the course of investigation. Then third situation is the supposing the offensives committed only outside India. Do Indians committed the offense outside India? Then that investigation can be conducted. But no inquiry or trial without the previous sanction of the central government under the proviso to section 188 CRPC. Section 188 CRPC contemplates a sanction by the central government. Now without the previous sanction of the central government, no inquiry or trial can be conducted. In a case where offenses were committed wholly outside India. Therefore there also the date of commencement of trial is relevant. Then supposing in a session case, the session judge ordinarily makes over the cases to the additional session judge also for trial, for disposal, etc. Supposing a criminal appeal or a session case has been made over by the session judge to the additional session judge for trial and disposal. And before the additional session judge, the charge was framed and the plea of the accused was taken and he has pleaded not guilty. Trial has started. Once trial has started, session judge has no power to withdraw the case or to call for the case again to the session score. Because of the bar under section 409 clause 2, clause 2, 409 CRPC. So there also the commencement of trial is relevant. Then the power under section 319 that is for adding one more accused, supposing there are four accused and it turns out from the evidence that there is a fourth person. Supposing there are four accused persons already facing trial. Now it has come out in evidence that there is a fifth person also involved in the same occurrence, but he was not made accused by the police. Then if his complicity is revealed, then he also can be added on by invoking the power under section 319 CRPC. Here this power cannot be invoked or exercised by the magistrate or session judge during the course of investigation. The trial has to commence and the complicity of that additional person should be revealed by the evidence. Section uses the word evidence. So necessarily there has to some evidence has to come on record. Therefore it is only after the commencement of trial that such a person can be arrayed as an additional accused. These are situations where the commencement of trial may loom large before a court. So the prosecutor, the defense counsel as well as the court should be aware whether the trial has come in or whether trial has not come in for exercising these powers. That is why we are examining why trial has come in. When does trial come in a warrant trial, warrant case? Yes, you may pass on to question number three. See under the court of criminal procedure 1973. Is there any improprietary in using the expression summary case or a sessions case? See the CRPC contemplates only two types of cases. Sessions case and warrant case. It does not contemplate summary case or sessions case. Only two types of cases, summons case and some warrant case. Now summons case is a case which where the procedure for trial is summons trial, summons trial procedure. And warrant trial is a case where procedure for trial is warrant case. Now we examined the other day what exactly is the definition of summons case. Summons case definition is very unhelpful because summons case definition 2W, section 2W says summons case is a case which is not a warrant case. Therefore we have to necessarily examine what exactly is a warrant case. Now warrant case is defined under section 2 X CRPC to say that warrant case is a case where involving an offence which is tribal with death, which is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term more than exceeding two years. So if the offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, it is a warrant case even if it is tribal by a court of session. So the session court is also actually trying a warrant case. So law contemplates only two types of cases summons case which are comparatively less graver offences whereas warrant cases are comparatively graver offences. Now summary trial, summary trial is still less, there also the procedure is summons procedure. For summary trial also they are less graver offences. The simplest offences are summary offences, summary trial offences. It can also include petty cases also where the punishment cannot exceed three months. There also the procedure is summons procedure. Therefore summons cases are include cases tribal by court of this summons procedure and also summary procedure. Warrant trial that is about two years can go up to life imprisonment or even death penalty. That is a warrant trial that can be before the magistrate up to a ceiling limit then before the session court up to unlimited. Beyond seven years it is session court. Therefore the law does not contemplate a summary case or a sessions case. The only contemplates summons case and warrant case. And summons case, summary case is also a summons case of a left degree. And session case is a warrant case. A case tribal by a court of session is also a warrant case having a higher degree of penalty. That is the punishment is graver. This sentencing can be imposed up to death or imprisonment for life. That is the distinction between warrant case and session case. Now you can read question number three. All of the chapters and the CRPC dealing with the summary trial and trial of summons cases, warrant cases and cases before the court of session. Summary trial as already mentioned, summary trial is a lesser form of summons trial. It is dealt with in chapter 21 of the court of criminal procedure and trial of summons cases is dealt with in chapter 20 of the court of procedure. Trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report is dealt with under part A of chapter 19. And trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report is dealt with in part B of chapter 19. In fact chapter 19 has two parts. Part A deals with offenses punishable on a police report, instituted on a police report. Whereas part B deals with warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, which can include a prior complaint also. Then trial before a court of session is dealt with in chapter 18 CRPC. These are the four chapters under which these various types of trial can be conducted. Yes, question number four is the most important question. Yes, sir. When does the trial begin in a warrant case, including the trial before a court of sessions? We have already seen that warrant case includes a trial before a court of session. Session courts are also trying warrant cases only. Only thing is the punishment can be imposed, higher punishment can be imposed. Now, when does trial start in a warrant case? Very perplexed baffled. It has been baffling courts, lawyers, prosecutors, everybody, even academicians. Now, one beautiful decision by justice R.S. Sarkaria, my pranams to the great judge. In paragraph 28 of Ratilal Banji Mitani versus state of Maharashtra. A.I.R. 1979, Supreme Court 94, prejudiced bench. A.I.R. 1979, Supreme Court 94, Justice Sarkaria, the author of the judgment. Then, O. Chinnapuradi, another stalwart, and A.P. Sen, still another stalwart. It was observed in paragraph 28 by Justice Sarkaria as follows. Trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge. His lordship did not stop there. But unfortunately, all of us have understood that trial in a warrant case and session case, session trial case, starts with the framing of charge. In fact, it is a misconception, which I will demonstrate before you. Now, if this observation which induced many of us to conclude that trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge. Subsequently, in a four judges bench decision, paragraph 39 of V.C. Shukla versus state through C.B.I. A.I.R. 1980, Supreme Court 962. A.I.R. 1980, Supreme Court 962. The judges were S. Murthasa Fazaleli, P.N. Shingal, D.A. Deshai and A.P. Sen. They are also without reference to Ratilal Banji by Justice Sarkaria. It was observed the proceedings start starting with section 238 of the code, including any discharge or framing of charge under sections 239 or 240 as the case may be amounts to a trial. So proceeding starting with 238. 238 is compliance of section 207 C.R.P.C. As in when the accused is produced or he appears before the court, the magistrate or the session judge will have to comply with section 207 C.R.P.C. That is giving copies of documents of the prosecution records. Copies of prosecution records will have to be supplied to the accused. Then the court will hear if the accused has got a plea of discharge. Court can hear that. Or if that plea of discharge is not exceeded to, then court will frame charge. So the four judges bench also said the proceedings start in with section 238. It is compliance of section 207 C.R.P. Including discharge or framing of charge is trial. This is what the four judges bench also held. In paragraph 35 and 43 of Hardeep Singh versus Tato Punjab. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1400. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1400. Five judges mind you. Justice P. Sadashivam C.J.I. Then justice Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Justice Ranjana P. Desai. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Justice S.A. Bobade. After referring to Redilal Banji and four other cases. Again concluded that trial commences with the framing of charge. Again the same mistake committed. Because without fully understanding Redilal Banji by RS Sarkaria. Now I will read out the exact passage. In Redilal Banji AIR 1979 Supreme Court 94. There is no confusion actually. We were all guided by the first sentence of that passage. But actually that passage does not end there. I will read that passage so that it will be very clear. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge. Prior to it the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of charge. If the accused pleaded not guilty. The magistrate is required to proceed with the trial. In the manner provided in sections 254 to 258. To a logical end. Section 254 to 258 was under the old code 1898 code. Corresponding sections are. Sections 246 to 248 of the 1973 code. So the learner judge. The three judge bench. Speaking through justice RS Sarkaria was very clear. After the framing of charge. If the accused pleaded not guilty. Supposing he pleaded not guilty. He pleaded he voluntarily pleaded. Supposing on reading the on framing the charge. The accused pleaded guilty. I pleaded guilty. I have committed these offense. Please award the appropriate punishment on me. If he is pleading guilty. And if the magistrate is convinced that the plea of guilt is voluntarily made. There is no trial. There need not be any trial. The magistrate will not call upon the prosecution to prove his case. Therefore. It is only when the accused pleads not guilty. Will the magistrate or the session judge call upon the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore this this important passage. Was not fully read by many of the judges. And even the lawyers. The above observation. If read in its entirety. Will fall in line with the statutory provisions in the CRP. The previous the provisions pertaining to framing of charge in a warrant trial. And a trial before court of session are the following. The warrant trial sections 240 on a police charge case. Section 246 in a complaint case. Section 228. In a session case. In a case before a session. In a session trial. In a session trial. Now if trial starts with the framing of charge. Then there is no meaning in the in the provision. There are 11 provisions in the CRPZ. Where the there are three sections important sections. 240 to one section to cross one of section 242 CRPZ. Which says warrant trial in a police that is. Pretending to warrant trial on a police report. Then 246 clause for CRPZ. Warrant trial otherwise than on a police report. That is private complaint. Then 230. The trial before a court of session. In all these sections. The section says the provision says. If the accused does not plead guilty. Of the accused pleads not guilty. He and claims to be tried. And claims to be tried. Therefore when the accused is pleading not guilty. He claims the magistrate that I may be tried. I may be tried. So the trial comes only thereafter. So when the accused pleads not guilty. And claims to be tried. Then it is only then that the trial can commence. Now there is also yet another intrinsic portion in the CRPZ. Which suggests that the mere framing of charge. With the mere framing of charge trial cannot start. Now take a case where. During the preliminary hearing now in his trial before a court of session. Sessions judge cannot take cognizance to the offense as a court of original jurisdiction. Without the accused being committed to it. Now he has to be the accused has to be committed to the session ordinarily. The session judge under section 193 CRPZ. The magistrate will commit the case to the court of session. Now in a after committal when the case comes up for preliminary hearing under section 227 CRPZ. The session judge is convinced that supposing it is a case of 307. 307 is a case tribal by a court of session. Exclusively by a court of session. Now after perusing the prosecution records during the preliminary hearing under section 227. The session judge is of the view that 307 is not actually made up. What actually is made out is only 326. The offense punishable under section 326. It is not exclusively tribal by court of session. The precious time of the sessions court need not be wasted. Therefore, there's a promotion under section 228 section 228 1A. Entitling the session judge to frame charge. And transfer the case to the chief judicial magistrate or to the judicial magistrate of first class as the case may be for trial. 228 1B. Now, if trial starts with the framing of charge, then the trial has started before the court of session. Because section says that the session judge will frame charge and then transfer. Now, actually, in real practice, in real, what is actually happening in court is session judge may frame charge, but session judge is not taking the plea of the accused. Session judge after framing charge transfers the case to the magistrate. Now the magistrate cannot take the plea of the accused on the charge if framed by the session judge. Magistrate will have to frame charge again and take the plea of the accused after the transfer from the session court. Therefore, it is only when after framing charge, when the, and that is why the section says and transfer the case for trial. 228 1A says transfer the case for trial to the magistrate. Session judge is transferring the case for trial. Therefore trial can start only after the accused pleads not guilty. Not when the accused pleads guilty. If the accused pleads guilty, then if the magistrate is convinced or the session judge is convinced that the plea of guilt is voluntarily made, then there is no trial. He can straight away award an appropriate, contained punishment on the accused. There is the prosecution need not be called upon to prove its case. This important aspect has to be borne in mind. Of course, you're all bound by the decisions by the Constitution bench also, which says trial starts with the framing of charge. But in my respectful submission, Ethilal Banji Mitani, year 1979, Supreme Court 94, which was also followed by the Constitution bench and other benches also. There the observation by Justice Sarkaria has not been properly fully understood, fully imbibed. If that observation in paragraph 28 of Ethilal Banji has been fully understood, had been fully understood, then no court can say or no lawyer can argue that trial starts with the framing of charge. Trial can start only after framing of charge and the accused pleads not guilty. And this only when the accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. These are the words of sections 24212464 and 230 CRPC claims to be tried. It's only when the accused claims to be tried that the trial can start before that trial does not. And the relevance of starting a trial we have already examined. Certain things cannot be done after the commencement of trial. Certain things can be done only after the commencement of trial. That is my take on this important portion. That is why this webinar. In fact, in a very long webinar, I had mentioned this in my earlier webinars. But then this point was not fully understood by any of the judges and lawyers. Thank you. One question has come. Yes. That's in the chat box. As you have mentioned in the warrant case based on the police report, the trial commences when the accused rejects the plea of guilty and claims to be tried. But in rule 132 of the criminal rules of practice in Kerala, is there stated that the trial commences on the date on which documents under section 207 are furnished and the magistrate satisfies it under 238. That's because V.C. Shukla, the high court while framing the rules, who was following V.C. Shukla. You know, seven complains. Trial doesn't start. Trial doesn't start. And rules framed by the high court cannot override the provisions in the CRPD. Substantive provisions in the CRPs. Basically, the actual prevail over the rules. Yes, sir. That was the only question. Yes. And thank you, everyone, for remaining connected with us. And as usual, we will be indebted to Justice Ankumar for sharing his knowledge. And we keep on looking for his short, crisp webinars, where in the meeting, ladies of the laws are explained in a subtle, but a point which I will explain. Before we part, one of your friend I've just seen. I said, Mollitra has also joined. I will ask him to unmute himself. And we are all sorry for the interruption at the beginning due to some technical slag. Not unmuting it. I said Mural Murli can unmute. I don't know what has happened. He's not able to. You will have to enable him to do so. I don't know what has happened. That's it. We understand his understanding for laws always good. So thank you, everyone. Stay safe. Stay best. Thank you. Thank you.