 as we have embarked on the series with Justice Veeram Kumar on sessions which facilitate to understand the law in the criminal jurisprudence in a different perspective which have more practical aspects to be learned and we have seen that these sessions have actually been picked up like anything. So we keep on requesting Justice Veeram Kumar and he happily accepts it because he believes like the team of Beyond Law CAC that it's the time to repay back to the society and today's session will be delving upon trial of Summon's case instituted on a complaint and we are thankful to Justice Veeram Kumar for accepting our invite. Over to you sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Good evening friends. The other day during the other session we discussed trial of Summon's cases instituted on a police report falling under part A of chapter 20 CRPG. Today we are discussing the procedure of trial of Summon's cases instituted on a complaint loosely called the private complaint is falls under part B of chapter 20 CRPG. The relevant sections are section 251 that is the substance of accusation to be read over and explained to the accused then comes section 252 conviction on his pleading guilty voluntarily pleading guilty without a trial then section 254 procedure when not convicted under section 252. Here the trial starts actually trial starts here only 254 then after the prosecution evidence is over accused is examined under section 313 CRPG then the discussion on merits 255 section 251 acquittal on merits section 255 to acquittal on rather conviction on merits unless the magistrate invokes section 325 or 360 CRPG as the case may be then section 255 3 subsection 3 conviction also for proved or admitted offenses offenses which have been proved or admitted they can all the accused can be convicted for them also then comes section 256 non appearance or death of the complainant what happens now this has no application in police charge because their state is the complainant there cannot be death of the state to then comes 257 withdrawal of complaint this has no application in police charge case because there the charge sheet is laid by the police the state is the complainant then comes 259 power to convert summons into warrant case summons case into warrant case now we will examine the the stages the the provisions stage by stage so trial of summons case intituted on a police on a complaint on a complaint mean private complaint first step is supply of copies to the accused if he is already not supplied with the copy of the complaint etc along with the summons court will ensure magistrate will ensure that he supplied with copies of the complaint documents produced along with the complaint etc and so on statement of witnesses etc then 251 is the correct the starting of the first step towards starting of trial but then once trial starts Adalya Prasad versus Rupalal Jindal air 2004 Supreme Court 4674 and Subramanian Sethuraman versus state of Maharashtra air 2004 Supreme Court 4711 have taught us that once trial starts there cannot be any midway stoppage any stopping of the trial midway there cannot be any dropping of proceedings or the stopping of proceedings midway court the trial has to go on and until it reaches a final stage of acquittal or conviction therefore there is no via media in between therefore once trial starts court the magistrate cannot stop the proceedings my share cannot put an premature stoppage of the proceedings my share cannot terminate the proceeding prematurely but if if the substance of accusation substance of accusation to be read over to the accused does not contain the offense at all the the so the we in Kerala we judges in Kerala have taken the cue from Adalya Prasad and said Subramanian Sethuraman have taken the view that sound sound taken the view that the before trial before the commencement of trial if the substance of accusation does not contain the offense does not make out the offense then the court can the magistrate can stop the proceedings by not reading out the substance of accusation and by convincing the trial the court can say that the substance of accusation does not contain the ingredients of offense and there is no point meaning in asking the accused to face the trial according the court can drop the proceedings so this is a via media rather even before the commencement of trial magistrate can stop the proceedings by not reading out the substance of accusation by not reading out the particulars of offense to the accused and thereby put an end to the ordeal which he may have to face if trial were to commence then comes the real trial now how to state the substance of accusation now supposing the substance of accusation contains the the the ingredients of the offense the offense is made out by the substance of accusation then the substance of accusation will have to be read over to the accused trial has to start how to read the substance of accusation we are reading out the complaint filed by the complainant is not sufficient but the particulars of the offense must be explained to the accused in the language known to him magistrate the accused magistrate should state the necessary ingredients of the offense accused should be upright of the substance of accusation and it should be made clear for what he is being tried he should be told that he's being tried for such and such offense the particulars of which are the following that is the substance of accusation being read over to the accused you mean there's a old kerala ruling by justice be going the men one who was subsequently elevated to the supreme court state of kerala versus raman noir 1961 klt 465 the corresponding criminal law journal is 1962 one criminal law journal 429 just is going the manner the the the manner in which the substance of accusation needs to be read over to the accused has been very beautifully stated by justice men out then as a natural corollary substance of accusation should disclose the offense the substance of accusation read over to the accused should disclose the offense when the substance of accusation read over to the accused the magistrate should bear in mind that same does disclose the ingredients of the alleged offense otherwise if the accused were to plead guilty to the substance of accusation his plea may only amount to an admission of the facts stated in the substance of accusation which is devoid of the ingredients of the offense in that case we cannot say that he has pleaded guilty because there is no substance of there is no the ingredients of the offense is absent so even if he pleads he pleads the substance of accusation to be true he is only saying that i admit the facts stated therein but the facts stated therein do not complete the offense do not make out the ingredients of the offense so merely because he pleaded guilty he he you can't say in the i of law that he has pleaded guilty to the offense this is what the kala i got speaking through justice superman in puti beautifully stated in state versus gopina the pillayi 1978 klt 779 now if the trial of the seven k there is no now it was also highlighted that there is no framing of charge unlike in a warrant trial in a warrant trial there is a framing of charge charge yet to be framed by the court but in a seven trial there is no framing of charge only the substance of accusation that is the particulars of the offense will be read over by the magistrate to the accused and explain to him now if the substance do not contain the ingredients of the offense there is no point in reading over the substance of accusation to the accused and the court can terminate the proceeding at that stage itself by taking the cue from adhala prasad and superman in tizu raavan therefore he should not be subjected to the ordeal of a trial thereof so it is only when substance of accusation contain the ingredients of an the magistrate need read those that substance is accused and take his plea now after reading the substance of accusation the court the magistrate will ask him mr accused whether you plead guilty or not guilty then comes section 252 the next section conviction on pleading guilty now this section says if the accused plead guilty the magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused himself and may in the discretion of the magistrate convict him thereof so supposing the accused plead guilty that plea of guilt by the accused should be recorded by the magistrate in the same in the very same words used by the accused which we are usually called by invoking a latin maxim ipsisima verba the plea of guilt by the accused should be recorded in the very same words of the accused accused might say some words while pleading guilty his own words should be recorded by the magistrate while recording the plea of guilt ipsisima verba in his own words then conviction on plea of guilty guilt may stop the accused from challenging the conviction see it is a very crucial stage when the substance of accusation is read over to the accused to the accused by the magistrate and explained to the accused in the language known to him the magistrates is discharging a very crucial very important role very significant role the magistrate has to be very careful because why once the ingredients of offense are there and and the accused pleads guilty and he's he can be straight away convicted the magistrate can straight away find him guilty convict him and impose an appropriate sentence on him so once he voluntarily pleads only only precondition is that magistrate should be satisfied that the accused is pleading guilty voluntarily that is without any extraneous influence or pressure nobody has influenced him he is on his own pleading guilty maybe because of the prick of conscience he may be having the prick of conscience to say that it is an offense which I committed why should I tell a lie before the magistrate I did commit the offense so he is pleading guilty voluntarily the magistrate is satisfied the magistrate can straight away convict him but then once he pleads guilty and he is convicted then he cannot thereafter turn round and challenge his conviction it is true that I pleaded guilty but I am I am I can still contend before the appellate court before the superior court that what I pleaded was not correct I did not plead guilty that does not they believe it's guilty no he is stopped from stay stating otherwise once he pleads guilty and he's convicted this is because under section 375 CRPC there is a bar of appeal he cannot challenge the conviction if he is if he has been convicted on his plea of guilt if he was convicted on his own pleading guilty then he cannot challenge the conviction because he admitted the offense since he admitted the offense he cannot thereafter say that I did not admit the offense he admitted the offense therefore his conviction cannot be questioned by him in an appeal but he can challenge the legality and extent of the sentence legality and extent of the sentence he can challenge because there he he did not ask for any particular sentence so depending on this action circumstances again he can say that the sentence imposed on me of course I pleaded guilty but the sentence imposed on me is on the harsher side it is very harsh please reduce the sentence that he can that alone he can plead then the bar against challenging the conviction does not make out any offense now as I mentioned earlier supposing he pleaded guilty to the substance of accusation which does not contain the ingredients of offense he is only admitting the substance of accusation which does not contain which is devoid of the ingredients of offense in such a case he is not stopped from challenging the conviction also because he did not plead guilty there is nothing to be pleaded guilty in such a case as I mentioned the earlier decision by justice supramani puti in gobinada pille 1978 klt 779 there is lordship said if what he pleaded was only the admission of the substance of accusation which is devoid of the substance the the ingredients of offense then he is not stopped from challenging the conviction also he can challenge the conviction as well as the sentence supposing this conviction goes sentence also will do conviction on plea of guiltiness in discretionary even when the accused pleads guilty the the section says the magistrate may in his discretion convict the accused therefore even when the accused pleads guilty the magistrate is not bound to convict him not to understanding the plea of guilt the magistrate can call upon the prosecution to prove the case of the accused three case of the prosecution against the accused this is something like it's an extension of the principle of section 58 of the evidence act under section 58 of the evidence act an admitted fact need not be proved supposing I had in a in a dispute between two parties one party admits the allegations of the other then why should you prove that he is already admitting that therefore the other party need not prove it that is what the the principle laid down in the undained in section 58 of the evidence act but even there there is a proviso not to standing the admission the court may call upon the other party to prove the allegation I make an allegation against me be initially dispute that then subsequently coming to court he says I admit the allegation so when we admit the allegation I need not prove my allegation but court may say he has not fully understood the allegation that is why he's admitting the allegation to prove your allegation court can still say not to understanding his admission the opposite party should prove the allegation same principle is there in the section 252 also not to understanding the plea of guilt court can refuse to convict him and call upon the the prosecution to prove its case that is why the court in his discretion that's why the words court in the magistrate may in his discretion convict the accused now one thing to be born in mind is when the accused voluntarily plead guilty and the magistrate straight away convicts him there's no trial prosecution is not called upon to prosecution is not called upon to examine its witnesses and prove its case there's no trial at all that is why I said just because accused then yet another principle is so now here's a case where the accused has voluntarily pleaded guilty so the magistrate may be inclined to give him a leniency in the sentence no once he plead the the effect is same whether he plead not guilty and the court ultimately finds him guilty or whether he pleaded guilty and the court find finds convicts him the consequence is same the punishment should be the same the punishment to be imposed should be the same just because he pleaded guilty it is not an incentive for the magistrate to reduce the sentence this is what judges we are Krishna here observe for the bench in Murlider Megharaj Laya versus Cheta Maharashtra AAR 1976 Supreme Court 1929 corresponding to 1976 3 SCC 684 judges here Krishna here and P. K. Goswami are the judges that is Krishna here being the author then under section 255 3 apart from convicting the accused for the alleged offense he can be convicted also for the any other offense which has been admitted or proved he can be convicted for any other offense which has been admitted or proved that is that that is enabled by section 255 3s here subsection 3 of section 255 now we pass on to section 253 now 253 has no application here because we discussed 253 in summary trial while dealing with petty offenses 253 has no application in summons trial on a complaint because we are not dealing with petty trial now once the accused either accused pleads guilty but the magistrate does not convict him he might say I can do that or the magistrate or the accused please not guilty and claims to be tried then we pass on to section 254 CRPC where the trial proper starts trial proper starts under section 254 in a situation where if the accused is not convicted under section 252 even after he pleading guilty he has got the magistrate has got the discretion or if the the the accused does not plead guilty I don't plead guilty I did not commit this offense I may be tried or claims to be tried then in such a case the magistrate has to call upon the prosecution to produce all its evidence you bring all your evidence in support of your case that is 254 and the section says prosecution shall produce all such evidence in support of the prosecution to produce the word produce does not mean that the entire liability is on the prosecution the court has also got a duty to enforce attendance of witnesses by issuing process under section 254 to CRPC this has been highlighted by the Madras High Court speaking through Justice Paul in state versus Virappan AIR 1980 Madras page 260 AIR 1980 Madras page 260 now the prosecution has been asked to produce all its evidence prosecution has produced all the evidence after the prosecution evidence is over supposing the there are materials incriminating there are materials which point a finger towards the accused towards the complicity of the accused then the accused has to be examined under section 313 CRPC now there are in a someone's case the magistrate can dispense with the attendance of the accused during trial by passing an order under section 205 CRPC for 317 CRPC now in a case where the accused has been the personal attendance of the accused has been dispensed with the magistrate need not examine the accused under section 313 CRPC the magistrate can put can ask the questions to the counsel appears was appearing for the accused but where the accused was present during the trial because he has a right to be present under section 273 CRPC so when the accused was present during trial the magistrate has to examine him with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence for the prosecution with a view to enable the accused to explain those circumstances there may be some supposing some witness had said that he saw the accused beating the victim with a stick the accused may say that true I bet him with a stick but it was in self defense he was the aggressor he was attacking me therefore I was defending the aggression by beating him with a stick so he may have so many explanations for each and every incriminating circumstance in the evidence for the prosecution that is why this is an extension of the principle of body altering partner no person shall be condemned unheard no person shall be condemned unheard so a right of hearing is given to the accused with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution each circumstance has to be put to the accused and his exploration has to be elicited now Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that if a particular incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused and his explanation elicited then that particular circumstance cannot be used by the magistrate for recording a conviction against the accused a circumstance which was not put to the accused and his explanation was not thought should not be used against him for convicting him you may usefully refer to Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda who is the state of Maharashtra AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 corresponding to 1984 volume 4 SCC 116 they dictum by three judges the the as Murthasa Fazal Ali A Varadarajan and Sabhya Saji Mukherjee they were the judges then we pass on to section 255 now we have now the trial has started now trial is coming to a close 255 1 acquittal on merits only after evidence now as per section 255 1 an accused can be acquitted of the offense only after merits only after the prosecution has adduced their evidence in support of the prosecution by producing witnesses under section 254 1 now the courts have taken the view that an acquittal without doing the support it is the duty of the court also courts have taken the view that it is though it is the going by the section it is the duty of the prosecution to produce all its witnesses prosecution can only ask for someone to a particular witness it is for the court to enforce to issue someone and enforce its execution therefore court has also got a duty to to ensure that prosecution witnesses are properly summoned and if not summoned they are brought before court by issuing cohesive steps like warrant etc and brought before court for deposing the truth before court therefore courts have taken the view that the the court has also got the duty to help the prosecution for producing their witnesses this is the same decision state versus vreppen which i referred to you earlier a year 1980 madras 260 a year 1980 madras 260 that's a kerala decision also shantama radha maniyama versus kunjubillai 1980 klt 393 corresponding to 1981 criminal law journal 247 rendered by justice s k kathar of the kerala icon that is 255 one there even though the duty is on the prosecution court has also got an obligation to help the prosecution in producing the witnesses i'm sorry we pass on to section 255 to crp now we say we we notice that accused is to be acquitted only after evidence under section 255 one now under section 255 two also accused can be convicted only on the strength of evidence abused by the prosecution now where the magistrate does not acute the accused under section 255 one crp and where he does not decide to submit the case the section says accused we found guilty on marriage unless the magistrate proceeds under section to 325 or under section 360s he are busy if the magistrate decides to proceed under section 325 he cannot straight away convict accused and passes evidence likewise if the magistrate after finding him guilty wants to give him admonition under the probation of offenders act or under section 360s he are busy or want to let him on probation let him go on probation then the there's no sentencing moves so even after convicting the accused the magistrate will not pass a sentence if he is proceeding to let the accused on probation under section 360 or under the probation of offenders act likewise if the magistrate is of the opinion after the trial but magistrate is yet to pronounce judgment after the trial the magistrate is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the accused should receive harsher punishment he can magistrate of first class can impose a first sentence of imprisonment only up to three years now he feels that this particular accused should receive a higher graver more stringent punishment so he can invoke the power under section 325 one crpc and submit the entire case to the chief judicial magistrate when he so submits the chief judicial magistrate may recall some of the witnesses and may even further reduce further evidence and I finally convict the accused or acute the accused and if he convicts the accused he can even impose a sentence beyond three years which is the upper limit of the magistrate of first class upper limit of the sentencing limit of the upper limit the magistrate of first class now therefore after the prosecution adduces evidence under section 254 256 crpc um then 254 crpc and the evidence is to the effect that the accused has committed the offense then if the magistrate does not invoke section 325 by submitting the case to the CJM chief judicial magistrate or does not invoke the provisions of the probation of offenders act then the magistrate has to find the accused guilty and impose an appropriate sentence on him under section 255 two crpc then comes section 255 3 now as we found in under section 252 when the accused pleads guilty he can be straight away found guilty found guilty and then sentence can be imposed on him and while imposing the sentence we notice that the the power under section 255 3 also can be exercised by the magistrate by finding him guilty also for an offense which is either admitted or proved by the evidence likewise when the final conviction comes after trial there also the magistrate can invoke section 255 3 crpc and find him guilty not only of the offense he has been found guilty after trial but also for any other offense which is either admitted or proved by the evidence that is the power under section 255 3 then comes section 256 crpc non-appearance of the complain in a so we are dealing with a summons case in teacher drone a private complaint supposing the the no some in a summons case when the complainant is absent on the date of hearing the three courses open to the magistrate are one the accused may be acquitted because the he a complainant is absent why should the accused be allowed to undergo the trauma of a trial he can be acquitted under section 255 3 second option the case may be adjourned to facilitate the prosecution to reduce evidence if any third option the magistrate may proceed with the trial of the trial if personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary supposing complainant is absent but his personal attendance is not necessary having regard to the state of the case in that case also the magistrate cannot acquit the accused and penalize the complainant a discretion is vested with the magistrate to adjourn the case even though the words used are if the complainant does not appear the magistrate shall acquit the accused even though it is worded couched in such a peremptory words such a mandatory word courts have taken the view that it is not necessary that you know in every invariably in every case the magistrate should acquit the accused hence if the magistrate in his discretion adjourn the case it cannot be said that the order is either improper or illegal this is what the Kelaikot speaking through justice KP Balanarayana Mahara held in Sundarashan versus MS Hardways 1995 volume 1 KLT 689 the again the conduct of the complainant plays a significant role this is what the Supreme Court said in yes Ramakrishna yes Ramakrishna versus yes Rami Reddy AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2006 corresponding to 2008 Phi SCC 535 Justice SB Sinha and Justice LS Panta Justice SB Sinha being the author of the judgment the the contact to the complainant also plays an important significant role in a case where he remains absent so it is not it may be innocuous it may be very innocuous absent or it may be deliberate absent court has to see the conduct of the complainant in remaining absent on a particular day then the accused is under an obligation to attend the court on all the posting days he will be put to much harassment if the complainant were to practice dilatory tactics the complainant were to practice dilatory tactics the accused would be put to untold harassment therefore section 256 affords a protection to the accused again against such tactics practiced by the complainant who remains absent the magistrate in such a case would be justified in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused under section 256 he are busy but the discretion to acute the accused or to proceed with the trial must be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of justice that should be that should be the guiding rule for the magistrate if the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on a particular day the magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case it is only in a situation which does not justify the case being adjourned can the magistrate dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused this is the word of caution given by the supreme court in associated semen company limited keshavaranth associated semen company limited versus keshavaranth air 1998 supreme court 596 corresponding to 1998 1 acc 687 justice mk mukherjee and justice kati thomas justice kati thomas being the author of the judging again when the complainant in a case is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant the body corporate is the de jure complainant and the de jure complainant has to be represented by some human agency no magistrate shall insist that the particular person whose statement was recorded on oath at the first instance alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings because the company is governed by individuals very often they may change therefore the magistrate cannot insist that the the very same person who was examined on oath under section 200 crpc while the complaint was filed should be present throughout should be the person representing the company through or no magistrate cannot insist that there may be occasions when different persons may have to represent the company only thing is they will have to show the appropriate resolution showing that the earlier person has ceased to hold office there is a subsequent person next ingumband is the person who is now present before magistrate the same decision associated semen company limited versus keshavana air 1998 supreme court 596 justice mk mukherjee and justice kati thomas it is the kati thomas being the author of the judgment in a case where the magistrate had given several adjournments still the complainant did not appear or and his witnesses were also not present and there was no representation also in court the man it was held that the magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused under section 256 crpc manual versus state 1984 klt 859 the judges justice baskaran namya of the kerala echo we now pass we are now going to consider the other contingency referred to in section 256 crpc 256 section 256 refers to two contingencies one absence of the complainant to death of the complainant supposing the complainant is no more such a contingency will not happen in a summons case intituted on a police report since in such a case the de jure complainant is the state itself state is the complainant there cannot be death of the state so it is it can happen only in a summons case intituted on a private complaint as the present one there is no specific provision in the crpc to the effect that on the death of the complainant the complaint will abate no provision unlike in a criminal criminal prosecution in a prosecution in a puricha like an appeal appeal appealing abating abating 394 example adjourning the case consequent on the death of the complainant is within the power of the magistrate under section 256 crpc if in the meanwhile one of the legal representatives of the deceased complainant or an otherwise fit and proper person comes forward seeking permission to continue the proceeding it is within the power of the magistrate to permit such person to continue the proceeding this was so held by kala echoed in shanti bala gobailan shanti bala gobailan versus venil day venil day 19 1992 volume 2 klt four double eight 1992 volume 2 klt four double eight this is bala narayana mara of the kala echoed because the power does exist under the under section 302 crpc to permit for the magistrate to permit any person to continue the prosecution upon the death of the complainant his legal ayes can file a petition under section 302 crpc seeking permission to continue the prosecution that is a a decision by supreme god bala sahib ek takari versus venkat 2006 volume 5 sec 530 corresponding to 2006 3 klt 509 judges are justice arish basait and ck takar justice arish basait being the author of the judgment his lordship held that in the event of in the eventuality of the death of the complainant the court can permit under section 302 any person any legal air coming forward to continue the proceeding to the prosecution any any of the legal ayes again even though the absence of the complainant on the day fixed for the hearing may entail the dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused in a case where the absence of the complainant is due to his death the 256 contemplates two contingencies one absence of the complainant to death of the complainant so absence of the complainant can be the result of his death also in such a case the magistrate can adjourn the hearing of the case and permit the son of the deceased come son of the deceased complainant to proceed with the company this is so held by the kala icot speaking through justice paris pili who was later the chief justice of kala icot jay rajan versus jay rajan 1992 volume 2 klt 586 1992 volume 2 klt 586 then comes section 257 withdraw well section 257 applies only to summon cases instituted on private complaint so held by kala icot speaking through justice or basant in yp baju versus state of kerala 2007 for klt 1082 that is 257 applies only to summon cases instituted on a private complaint not to summon cases instituted on a police report withdrawal of the complainant complaint and consequent acquittal of the accused in a summons case instituted on a complaint cannot be made in the absence of a request for withdrawal of complaint there has to be a specific request for withdrawal of the complaint there cannot be an assumed withdrawal the complainant has to specifically request for withdrawal of the complaint then only the court will be justified in withdrawing the complaint it was so held by justice k hemma hemma of kala icot in b uday kumar versus boben 2007 3 klt 247 2007 volume 3 klt 247 in the absence of compliance with the precondition in the form of a request for executing for exercising jurisdiction under section 257 crp the matter remit was remitted to the trial code for deciding afresh in accordance with law by the supreme court by justice gb patanayik and mb Shah in broad and fund inspector tirupati versus madhu sudhara chaudhary 2000 2000 volume 9 scc 506 there in the absence of compliance with the precondition of a in the form of a request for exercising jurisdiction justice i told you judges hemma of the kala icot had taken to view that under this specific request for withdrawal from the complainant it is not permissible for the magistrate to withdraw the complaint here also in the absence of a specific request for exercising jurisdiction under section 257 the supreme court remitted the matter to trial code for deciding afresh in accordance with law a complaint figuring complainant figuring as a private public interest litigation a complainant figuring as a public interest litigant after pursuing his case against quashing of the criminal proceeding up to the supreme court there is a request for quashing the complaint instituted by a private complainant in the form of a public interest litigation there was a request for quashing the complaint he resisted all the request right up to the supreme court then after that instead of fighting the case he sought withdrawal of the complaint supreme court said nothing doing you can't withdraw the case after having fought up to the supreme court and resisted the attempt to quash the proceedings you it will it will be it will be against the discipline of the court some sambhatsingh versus state of hariyana sambhatsingh versus state of hariyana 1993 one acc 561 just is regnaval pontian is the author of the gentleman the other judge was just is jai chandra ready this is jai chandra ready then we come to the last section 259 section 259 conversion of sambhatsingh case into waran case this section which is a new provision empowers the magistrate to convert a sambhatsingh case into a waran case if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for more than six months and if the magistrate is of opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to try the case in accordance with the procedure for trial of waran cases because the case merits trial waran trial procedure magistrate is of opinion that the case merits waran trial procedure in that case magistrate can convert the sambhatsingh trial procedure into waran trial procedure only thing is magistrate should commence the proceedings de novo afresh from the very start with that we come to an end of this session that is trial of sambhatsingh case introduced on a private complaint under chapter 20 crpc mr vikas thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and as you always speak that we always learn something new whenever your session is here and despite that you had called you kept the promise of holding the webinar we are always invited thank you everyone be safe and be blessed noshka thank you