 Good evening everyone. And as we have started a small series, if he's believed by saying it is small parts, keeping in view the timeline, it's a trial of someone's cases instituted on a police report. And the session is by none other than Justice Veeram Kumar, a former judge from Kerala High Court. As we have seen that we have started a series in this regard and who else can explain it better than Justice Veeram Kumar. We had made a special request on the request received on the WhatsApp to give us a deeper insights on these aspects and Justice Veeram Kumar had accepted it. Thank you for accepting our invite and Odeo sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Good evening friends. It has already been seen that a someone's case is one relating to an offense punishable with imprisonment after two years and below. That is up to two years only in view of section 2W and section 2X of the Code of Criminal Procedure CRPC for short. A someone's case can be instituted either on a police report or on a complaint. Let us first examine the procedure for trial of a someone's case instituted on a police report. Now the relevant sections are section 251, substance of accusation to be read over and explained it to the accused. Then comes section 252, conviction on pleading guilty. If the accused voluntarily pleads guilty, the magistrate may convict him. Thereafter straight away convict him. Then section 254 procedure when not convicted under section 252 CRPC. That is the real trial. Trial proper starts only under section 254. Then after the prosecution evidence is adduced, then the accused has to be heard on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. 313 examination. Then comes 255,1. Equit on merits. After considering the evidence, etc. The magistrate can acquit the accused on merits if there is no sufficient evidence. Now, otherwise section 252, 55. Section 255, 2. Conviction on merits. That is after considering the evidence, etc. If the magistrate feels that there is sufficient evidence to convict him, magistrate can convict him on merits. Unless the magistrate decides to proceed under section 325 CRPC or under section 360 CRPC. We will refer to these sections in due course. Then comes 255,3. Apart from convicting the accused for the offence for which he is tried, he can also be convicted for offences which are proved or admitted in evidence. If there is an offence which has been admitted in evidence or if there is an offence which is proved, then he can be convicted for that offence also under section 255,3. Then comes 258. Now, after the commencement of trial, if the magistrate finds that he cannot proceed further for want of evidence or for want of witnesses, whatever may be the result, he cannot proceed further. He can stop the proceedings. Proceedings can be stopped. Stoppage of proceedings is under section 258 CRPC. Then comes section 259. A summons case can be in an appropriate case converted into a warrant case. These are the relevant provisions which we are considering today. Now, with that we will let us examine the provisions, the procedure. Now, once the accused appears or is brought before the magistrate in a case instituted on a police report, the magistrate has to first comply with section 207 CRPC. As per section 207 CRPC, accused needs to be supplied with copies of the police report. Under section, the police report is the charge sheet. Then FIR, recorded under section 154 CRPC. Then statements of all other witnesses and all other records which the prosecution is going to rely upon during the trial. That is compliance of section 207. So, the moment accused appears or is brought before the court, section 207 is to be complied with. After complying with section 207, now the procedure is, first procedure is by the magistrate is section 251. On the judicial side, first procedure is section 251. Now, what is that? The substance of accusation is to be read over to the accused and explained to him in the language known to him. Substance of accusation, that is, particulars of the offence needs to be read over and explained to the accused. Now, the purpose of stating the particulars of the offence to the accused is to decide whether the accused should be put on trial. Supposing the material is produced by the prosecution, do not at all make out any offence. The alleged offence is not made out at all in the police report. Then why should the accused be subjected to the trauma of a trial? So, but once the in a summons case we have already seen in the previous classes. So, in a summons trial in a police report, trial starts when the substance of accusation is read over to the accused and his plea is taken and he pleads not guilty. If he pleads guilty, there is no trial. The magistrate can straight away convict him and impose his sentence upon him. But if he pleads not guilty or even after the plea of guilt, the magistrate is not inclined to convict him, then only the trial starts. So, the overruling and earlier decision of the Supreme Court, way back in 1992, that is, came Joseph, I am sorry. I don't remember, 1992 Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court held that even after the commencement of trial, the magistrate has got authority to terminate the proceedings midway. That was the view taken in 1992 Supreme Court. But that decision was overruled later by Adalat Prasad versus Rupal Jindal. That is, year 2004 Supreme Court, 4674 corresponding to 2004 volume 7 SCC 338, three judges. Justice Sandosh Agade is the author of the judgment. Apart from him, Justice S.B. Sinha and A.K. Mathur, the three judges went overruled that 92 Supreme Court decision and held that. No, once the trial has started in a summons trial, summons case, there is no stoppage of proceedings in between unless in a polychar case, the magistrate resorts to section 258 CRP. Otherwise, there is no stoppage of the proceedings. The case should end in a conviction or acquittal. Now, no via media. That was the view taken in Adalat Prasad, which was again affirmed by the Supreme Court. Another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Subramaniam, Sethuraman versus state of Maharashtra. Year 2004 Supreme Court 4711 corresponding to 2004, 13 SCC 324, again three judges. They held that once the trial has started on the accused, pleading not guilty. Then, there is no question of the magistrate retweeting his steps backward to a stage prior to the substance of accusation being went over and then discharge the accused. There is no discharge also. Therefore, it is not open to the magistrate to prematurely terminate the proceedings midway. That is the view taken in these two three-judge bench decisions. Therefore, now they are taking the cue from these two rulings of the Supreme Court. We judges in Kerala used to, what we used to do is, supposing the particulars of the offence given to the magistrate by the police in the police report do not make out any offence. Supposing the particulars do not make out any offence. Why should the trial at all be started? Why should the accused face a trial, face the trauma of a trial? So therefore, but once trial started, then it has to, the magistrate has to record the evidence, either acquit or convict, only on merits. Therefore, even before the starting of trial, if there is no material to make out the offence, we judges in Kerala used to terminate the proceedings even before the starting of trial. That is permissive. In fact, there is one decision by, in a summons trial, police charge case, there is one decision by Justice R. Basant. Dr. Kamala Rajaram, who is the DOISP of, DOISP, SP Rural Niyatinkara, 2005, 3K LT 617, 2005, 3K LT 617. Wherein, it was held that even before the commencement of trial, if the magistrate can stop the proceedings and prematurely terminate the proceedings. Actually, that is the case where section 258 was pressed into service. Once you press into service section 258, TRPC, even if the trial has started, this power can be used, power can be exercised by the magistrate. There is no question of the trial, the trial having started, the magistrate cannot terminate. Even after the commencement of trial under section 251, it is open to the magistrate to apply section 258 if the magistrate cannot proceed further. Due to want of evidence, due to, even after coercive steps being taken against the accused, against the witnesses, no witness is coming forward. Then the magistrate will have no alternative except to terminate the trial. So, the magistrate can stop the proceedings under section 250N. Therefore, this was the view taken by the Kerala High Court. Now, so therefore the substance of accusation, reading out the substance of accusation to the accused is of very, is of utmost importance. Unless the, of the ingredients of the offence are there in the particulars of the offence, in the substance of accusation, there is no point in acuting the accused being asked to plead whether he is guilty or not. And supposing the accused plead guilty, it is not a plea of guilt. He is only admitting the facts stated by the prosecution. There is no conviction. There is no admitting the guilt. He is not admitting the guilt because there is no, the offence is not made out. There is no question of the accused admitting the guilt. Therefore, it will be, the magistrate will be unnecessarily starting a trial by reading out the substance of accusation and taking his plea. Once it is started, then the magistrate cannot stop the proceedings midway. Therefore, it was held that before commencement of trial, the magistrate can drop the proceedings without reading the substance of accusation. But in a polychart case as we are discussing now, even after the commencement of trial, the power under section 258 CRPC can be resorted to by the magistrate by resorting to stoppage of proceedings, proceedings can be stopped. Now, there is a decision by Justice Subramaniam Poti of the Kerala High Court in state versus Gopinathapillai, where that is citation is 1978 KLT, 779, wherein his lordship held that if what is read over to the accused does not make out the ingredients of the offence, then even if the accused plead guilty, it is of no consequence because he is not pleading, he is only admitting the facts. There is no offence made out. See, you can't say that he has pleaded guilty. There is no question of convicting him. But once the trial has started, the magistrate cannot retrace his step backwards to a pre-trial stage. That is the whole problem because of the Adalat Prasad and Seiduraman, Subramaniam Seiduraman's decision. After 251, therefore, after 251 comes 252, conviction on pleading guilty. If after reading out the substance of accusation, the accused voluntarily plead guilty. The magistrate has to be satisfied that accused is voluntarily pleading guilty. That is, he is pleading guilty after knowing the consequence of the allegations made against him. He knows that he has committed the offence. He has the prick of conscience also. He doesn't want to state a falsehood before the court by saying that I have not committed the offence. He wants to admit the offence. He is admitting the offence, pleading guilty. In that case, if the magistrate is satisfied that the accused is not influenced by any other extraneous pressure. No police officer has applied pressure on him, has not intimidated him. He accused is acting on his own, voluntarily, of his own free will. Then if the magistrate is satisfied, the magistrate can straight away find him guilty of the offence to which he is pleading guilty. That is the power under section 252, CRPC. Now, if in case the accused is pleading guilty, the section clearly says that the plea as nearly as possible in the words of the accused himself should be recorded by the magistrate. The magistrate should record the very words of the accused, the very words used by the accused while pleading guilty. Which we in law say that it is a Latin expression, ipsisima verba. ipsisima verba means in the words of the accused himself, in his own words. Therefore, if the accused is pleading guilty, the magistrate should record the plea in the words of the accused himself, ipsisima verba. And then if he is satisfied that the plea has been voluntarily made, he may in his discretion, section 252 uses the word discretion. He is not mandatorily, he is not compelled to convict the accused. He is still the old, he has got the option not to convict him, but ask the prosecution to lead evidence. Therefore, even in a case where the accused voluntarily pleads guilty, the magistrate may in his discretion convict the accused. Now, convict the accused may stop the accused from challenging the conviction. Once the accused voluntarily pleads guilty and the magistrate straight away convicts him, he cannot turn around and say, no, no, I did not plead guilty. Once he pleads guilty, he is stopped from challenging the conviction. And mind you, that is why I said this power has to be exercised very carefully, very cautiously by the magistrate. Because magistrate should be satisfied that the plea of guilt made by the accused is really voluntarily made without any extraneous pressure or influence. In which case the magistrate can convict him, find him guilty. Once he is found guilty, accused cannot thereafter say that, no, no, I did not plead guilty. He cannot say. But if he has pleaded guilty to the substance of accusation which does not make out the offense, then he can certainly say that, true, I admitted the facts there. But even if I admit the fact, they don't make out the offense. Therefore, my pleading guilty is of no consequence. I can still challenge the conviction. Otherwise, there is a section under the CRPC, section 375. Section 375 CRPC says that, if the accused is convicted on his own pleading guilty, then he cannot turn around and challenge the conviction. He cannot challenge the conviction, but he can only challenge the legality of the sentence. Suppose he is sentenced to six years imprisonment. He can say six years is too harsh. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it may be reduced. He can only plead for, he can only bargain for the sentence. He cannot say, I was wrongly convicted. No, he cannot say. That bar is there. Therefore, it is a very important that while convicting the accused on his plea of guilt, the magistrate should be very careful. The accused also should be very careful while pleading guilty. If he pleaded guilty without knowing the consequences, he may land himself in trouble. Mind you, once he is pleading guilty, voluntarily pleading guilty and the magistrate is straight away convicting him and is imposing a sentence according to law, there is no trial. Section 252, under section 252, there is no trial because he is pleading guilty. Prosecution is not called upon to induce evidence in support of the prosecution case. So there is no trial under section 252. Then courts have taken the view that just because he is pleaded guilty, the magistrate should not take his as an incentive for reducing the sentence. He has pleaded guilty. Just because he has pleaded guilty, it is not an incentive to the magistrate for reducing the sentence. Supposing he deserves a sentence of imprisonment for two years. Just because he has pleaded guilty, oh, he has pleaded guilty, poor man. Therefore, I am reducing the sentence to six months. No. For whatever he has done, give him an appropriate sentence. There is no question of any plea bargaining on the sentence because just because he has pleaded guilty. That is the view taken by the courts in the same Supreme Court has deprecated the passing of a plea-bite sentence on as a bargain for pleading guilty. You may refer to para-13 of Muralidhar Meghraj Loya. Sorry. Muralidhar Meghraj Loya versus state of Maharashtra. AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 1929 corresponding to 1976, 3 SCC, volume 3 SCC, 684. The judgment is authored by Justice V. R. Krishna here. Justice V. R. Krishna here. The other judge was Justice P. K. Goswami. Then, while convicting the accused on his plea, pleading guilty, the accused can also be convicted and by resort to section 15253 for offenses which are either admitted or approved. Other offenses which are either admitted or approved or he can also be found guilty under section 252 on pleading guilty by recourse to section 255 subsection 3, the RPC. This is the procedure. Then we pass on to the next section, section 254. Here comes the trial proper where the accused is not convicted under section 252 on his pleading guilty. Even on his pleading guilty, the magistrate may convict him or may not convict him. So, it is discretionary for the magistrate to convict him or not. So, where the accused is not convicted under section 252, even after he is pleading guilty or where the accused pleads not guilty, he says straight away says, I am not committed these offenses. I am not pleading guilty. I am not guilty. Or where the accused pleads not guilty, the magistrate should proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence that may be produced in this section. Now, the word produce cannot be given any restricted meaning so as to saddle the prosecution with the entire responsibility of producing evidence. It is true that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But yes, because prosecution has such a burden, the magistrate cannot put the whole burden on the prosecution. The magistrate should help the prosecution to produce witnesses. Production is not merely by the prosecution, but the court also can help the prosecution to produce witnesses by issuing process to witnesses. Supposing process to witnesses have been prayed for. The magistrate should issue summons in the first instance. Summons can be issued in the first instance. Supposing the witness does not respond to the summon, the magistrate can issue a warrant to the magistrate and ensure the protection of the witness before the court. All these additional steps, all these steps can be given by the magistrate to help the prosecution to produce evidence. Courts are the, in fact, there is a decision by the Madras High Court, State v. V. Rappan, A. R. 1980 Madras, 260, by Justice Paul, wherein it has been held there. Produce does not mean that it is for the prosecution. The entire burden is on the prosecution to produce the evidence. And if the prosecution is not seeking the aid of the court, court can straight away discharge the accused. The court also has got to play an important role, a proactive role in issuing summons, etc. And if the accused, if the witness does not respond to the summons, issue coercive steps, take coercive steps against the witness and see that he is produced before the court for giving evidence. Then, after the close of the prosecution evidence, as in any other trial, the accused has to be questioned under section 313-1BCRPC with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. But in summons cases, this is, they must, only if the accused has been present during trial. Supposing his personal attendance had been dispensed with by the magistrate, either by resort to section 205-CRPC or under section 370-1-CRPC, then the accused was not present during trial. So, he need not be questioned under section 313-CRPC. But otherwise, accused has got a right under section 273-CRPC, mind you. Acute has got a right to be present when evidence against him is taken. But he can forfeit that right by asking for exemption, asking for personal exemption. So, if he has invoked section 205-CRPC or 317-CRPC and got himself exempted from appearance, then he cannot turn around thereafter and say, no, no, I was not questioned under section 313-CRPC. Therefore, none of the incriminating circumstances can be used against him. He cannot turn around because he had himself voluntarily applied under section 205 or 317 for personal exemption. If he was given personal exemption, he need not be questioned under section 313. Otherwise, in all cases where the accused was present during trial, he has to be examined under section 313-CRPC. As I had mentioned to you in earlier occasions, examination under section 313 is a logical extension of the principle of Audi, Altarum, Parkup. No person shall be condemned and heard. That is why the Supreme Court has taken the view that if any particular incriminating circumstance was, his explanation was not sought with regard to any incriminating circumstance against him during 313 examination, that particular incriminating circumstance should not be used against him while convicting the accused. See, a particular incriminating circumstance is there. He was not, his explanation was not sought during 313 examination, in the case where he was present. Then, while convicting the accused, this particular circumstance which was, regarding which his explanation was not sought, should not be used against him. Courts have taken to that, go on to that extent. Therefore, in fact, in Sharad Birdhichand Sharada, Sharad Birdhichand Sharada versus state of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 corresponding to 1984 Volume 4 SCC 116, three judges decision. Other of the judges are Murthasa Fazal Ali, A. Vardhar Rajan and Sabyasaji Mukherjee. They have held that if any particular incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CRPC, court while convicting him should not use that particular circumstance against him for convicting him. So, that is the relevance of Section 313 CRPC. Then, we pass on to Section 255-1, acquittal on merits only on evidence, only after evidence. Now, under Section 252, we have seen if he is pleading guilty, court can straight away convict him without a trial. Now, trial started under Section 254, prosecution evidence was let in. Court is assisting the prosecution by issuing summons warrant, etc. Then, after trial, the accused can be acquitted on merits under Section 255-1 CRPC. And if in spite of such measures taken by the, to supposing the court had taken every measure to ensure the presence of witnesses before court, prosecution of witnesses before court by issuing summons, warrant, etc. Still, the court failed in, rather prosecution failed in securing the attendance of witnesses. In spite of the assistance rendered by the court, then it is a case where the court will be helpless except to record an acquittal. But it is only on evidence only. In state versus Europe, and that view was also taken a year 1980, Madras, 260. Kerala I. Court has also taken the view that this acquittal under, acquittal on merits under Section 255-1 can only be after ensuring that all possible steps for ensuring the attendance of witnesses had been taken by the prosecution assisted by the court. In spite of that, the prosecution evidence could be adduced, satisfactory evidence could be adduced. Then only there can be an acquittal. Kerala I. Court has also taken the view, same view as Madras I. Court in same year. That is 1980 KLT 393, 1980 KLT 393 by Justice SK Kathar, Justice SK Kathar of Kerala I. Court. Now we pass on to Section 255-2. Accused to be found guilty on merits only unless the magistrate proceeds under Section 325-1 or Section 360 CRP. Now prosecution has adduced evidence under Section 254. Entire prosecution evidence is there. There is enough material to convict the accused. There also the court, the magistrate has got two options. One is under Section 325-1 CRPC. For the reason that the magistrate is opinion that he cannot pass a sentence sufficiently severe, or where the, sufficiently severe he cannot pass a sentence. It is a case where the accused should receive more stringent punishment than the magistrate, than what the magistrate could inflict as per his sentencing jurisdiction. So he will have to make an opinion and submit the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further trial and conviction, so that the accused will receive contained punishment, proper punishment. That is one course open to the magistrate. He will not pass a record and a conviction. He will conduct the trial. Then after the trial, the magistrate is seized of the entire picture. The magistrate can make a report, make an opinion. This is a fit case where I can convict only up to three years. My sentencing limit is only three years, but this man deserves a more contained punishment. So the matter should be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 325 is the portion wherein he can submit the proceeding to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate can take further evidence if necessary or recall any of the witnesses already examined by the magistrate and then pass a sentence according, then convict him and pass a sentence according to law, which can exceed the sentencing limit of the magistrate who tried the case. That is one option available to the magistrate. The other option is he may be a first offender, accused may be a first offender. He may be, he may deserve to be dealt with under the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 360 CRPC is only that. After the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 has been extended to a state, 360 has no operation. Section 360 CRPC will have no operation. Once the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 has been extended to that state. So therefore then accused can be later on probation, can be later on probation or later after admonition etc under that provision. So unless the magistrate resorts to section 325 by submitting the case to the CJM or resorts under section 360 or Probation of Offenders Act, the magistrate has to convict the accused on merits, on the strength of the evidence induced by the prosecution. He can find the accused guilty and pass a sentence according to law. Here again section 255-3 which we noticed in the contextual section 252 will have application. Supposing there is any other admitted or proved offence, any other admitted or proved offence, the accused can be convicted for that offence also by recourse to section 255-3 CRPC. Then comes section 258, discharging the accused consecutive on stoppage of proceedings. This is a special provision available only in a case instituted on a police charge. A case instituted on a private complaint, this provision is not available. This provision is not there. 258 is available only in a case instituted on a police report. After the appearance of the accused and commencement of trial, if the accused should be present before court, accused should be in attendance while the prosecution evidence is taken by virtue of his right under section 273 CRPC. And midway, the magistrate finds it difficult to proceed further, either due to prosecution witnesses not turning up, even after court systems have been taken, or due to any other reason. The magistrate has come to a grinding halt, he cannot proceed further. Then section 258 comes to the rescue of the magistrate. The magistrate can resort to section 258 where such and stop the proceeding. Where the stoppage of the proceeding sees after the evidence of the principal witness, the main witness, principal witness of the prosecution has been examined, then it will amount to, the stoppage will amount to an acquittal barring a further trial. But if the stoppage was at a stage when one or two irrelevant witnesses have been examined, but no principal witness had been examined, then the stoppage can be continued and the stoppage will result in a release of the accused. The magistrate can, after stopping the proceeding, release the accused and the section says that relief shall have the effect of discharge, not an acquittal. For acquittal, principal witness should have been examined, but if an irrelevant witness alone has been examined, no other witness are available, instead of all coercive steps taken, then the court can stop, the magistrate can stop the proceeding and it will have the effect of, and can release the accused which will have the effect of discharge. Why the expression discharge is used is actually in summon trial there is no framing of charge and therefore there is no discharge, but why the legislature has used the expression discharge is that it will not bar a further trial, it will not bar a further trial. That is why, and he has to take the permission of the chief judicial magistrate, the magistrate will have to take the permission of the chief judicial magistrate before discharging the accused, before releasing the accused, which has the effect of discharge. And supposing for any reason the magistrate is able to complete the trial on a future date for any reason, he can take the permission of the chief judicial magistrate and revive the proceeding by resort to subsection 5 of section 300 CRPC. The magistrate can revive the proceeding and complete the trial after taking the permission of the chief judicial magistrate, because stoppage of proceeding was also after the permission of the CJF and the accused was only released, discharged and will not bar a further trial. Therefore, the magistrate can continue the trial, revive the trial after taking the permission of the chief judicial magistrate under subsection 500, section 300 CRPC. Now, in regarding section 258 CRPC, a division went to the Kerala High Court on 5-12-20-23, 5-12-20-23 reported in 2023 Kerala High Court cases online 8-21, 2023 KAC online 8-21, 8-21 is the page. Two judges are Jai Shankaran Nambiar and Kausar Edapagar. The division bench has taken the view that the magistrate can exercise the power of stoppage of proceeding, even in a case where the accused is evading the process of the court. See, after taking cognizance, the magistrate will issue process of the accused under section 204 CRPC. Now, supposing the accused is evading process, magistrate may issue someone in the first instance. If he is not responding, magistrate may issue warrant. And in spite of repeated warrant, the accused is not responding to the process. The division bench held that the power under section 258 CRPC can be invoked because the section says at any stage, but at any stage has to be understood at any stage after the appearance of the accused because under section 251, when the plea of the accused was taken, the accused has already appeared. Thereafter, the accused is expected to be present in all the proceedings. Of course, he can take, but he can get a permission to under section 205 or 317 to remain absent during trial voluntarily taken, but he is expected to be present. That is why he can be, these counsel can be permitted to represent him during his absence. And it is the counsel for the accused who will be representing the accused during his absence. But in the eye of law, accused is present. Therefore, after the appearance of the accused, only power under section 258 can be invoked. So, the division bench, in fact, held that this power can be exercised even in a case where accused is evading the process of the accused. In fact, the said view was not only contrary to the scheme under the CRPC, but also against the verdict of the Supreme Court in Renuka versus state of Karnataka. 2009, Volume 14, SCC 345. 2009, Volume 14, SCC 345. Corresponding to 2009, Kerman Law Journal 2245 by Justice S. B. Sinha and Justice Suryak Joseph. S. B. Sinha being the author of the judgment. The Leonard judges held that this power can be exercised only in the presence of the accused. So, accused has to be present. In fact, the division bench in my view was not taking a correct view by holding that an earlier verdict by a Leonard single judge. Namely, Justice Raja Vijay Raghavan. In 2019, 3KLT 98 corresponding to 2019, 3KLC 188 was not correct. Division bench said that this decision is not correct. In my humble opinion, with due respect, I would say that the Leonard single judge was right and the division bench was not legally correct. In the right of the Supreme Court, the 258 power can be exercised only after the appearance of the accused. At any stage means, at any stage after the appearance of the accused. In fact, that was the contention of the public prosecutor before the accused, but that was not accepted. Now, the remedy against evasion of roses is actually not 258 CRPC, but part C of Chapter 6 CRPC starting with Section 81, 82, etc. That is the remedy for non-appearance by the accused, evasion of roses by the accused. Then we come to Section 259, last provision, conversion of someone's case into a warrant case. This section, which is a new provision, empowers the magistrate to convert a someone's case into a warrant case if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for more than 6 months. And if the magistrate has an opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to try the case in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases. The word re-hear the case indicates that the magistrate should commence the proceedings de novo, that is from the very start. That is what Section 259 mandates. The provisions of summary trial, etc. Now, with Section 259, the power to convert the someone's case into warrant case in appropriate cases. We come to a close of the trial of someone's cases on a police institute or on a police report. Now, you can ask any doubts, if any. I will answer your doubts to the best of my ability in knowledge and capacity. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm just seeing as to whether we have, because of the chat, we don't have any. But I will just check it out as to whether we have. No, sir. There's only one comment by Mr. Hardik. Always thankful to Justice Rahman for such soulful lectures. Thank you. Thank you. There is one, I think. I think one Shankar has posted. Shankar says, if the idea failed to do proper investigation and include appropriate sections in the FIR and files an incomplete charge sheet, then how can the informant proceed further? How again? Then how can the informant proceed with it further? The question is not very clear. Incomplete or charge sheet is incomplete. I can read the question again. If the I.O. failed to do the proper investigation and did not include the appropriate section in the FIR and files an incomplete charge sheet, then how can the informant proceed with it further? If the charge sheet, just because the charge sheet is incomplete, that will not affect the power of the magistrate to take organizations as open. If the offense is disclosed by the materials produced along with the charge sheet. Supposing the materials produced along with the charge sheet are also deficient, then nothing can be done. Cognitions cannot be taken because the particularity of the offense is not made out. The charge sheet will be incomplete. But just because the charge sheet is incomplete, it will not affect the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take organizations as open if the offense is made out. Otherwise, it is made out. That is the legal position. If the witness does not want to appear to give evidence before court on the reason of possible job complications, then will that be considered by the court? Also, what if one is in abroad or unable to come in India to tender the evidence? Witness protection in India is not very satisfactory in spite of specific provisions made in the Indian Penal Code and CRPC. But unless the witness is coming forward in support of the prosecution, nothing can be done. Witness sufficient protection has to be given. If it is a police arcade, police will have to give sufficient protection to the witness to come to court and use evidence. But if he is not coming forward, nothing can be done except supposing he is intimidated by the accused or somebody on behalf of the accused. He has got the remedy under the IPC and CRPC. He can lodge a complaint before the magistrate. That is the only protection in the eye of law. Of course, we can say that the whistleblower who started the whole prosecution, who started the whole game should be protected. But his identity cannot be kept anonymous throughout the proceedings. Because if he is the person who set the criminal law in motion, he has to come to court and state so. Only thing the police can do or the magistrate or court can do is to afford adequate protection to him to ensure that he comes to court fearlessly and deposes before court. Nothing else can be done. In some unscathed investigation should be completed within the period of 6 months. If not, then what is the action? The magistrate will be answerable to the chief judicial magistrate. That's all. That will not invalidate the proceedings. If that will do under various statutes, district judges, high court judges, all are there is a time limit for certain proceedings to be completed. For uncontrolled proceedings, for example, there is a time limit. Are the proceedings completed within the timeframe fixed by law? But will the proceedings get initiated on account of that? No. So thank you, sir. As you always keep on saying that we are always indebted and some person has also shared his views. He says excellent comprehensive discourse by the real expert Justice Ramakumar. Thank you. Aramov Vagrahan, Nihaya Vigna. Thank you. Tomorrow we have a session on Strength and Challenges in the Forensic Science in India by Dr. G. Goswami. Who is an IPS and teaches in UP, plus he is an IPS. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6.30pm. Wonderful. The next session will be someone's case on a private company. There is slight difference in the procedure. Someone's case, I am sorry, someone's case initiated on a private company. Procedure is slightly different. We will discuss that. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you.