Summons Cases And Warrant Cases Distinction
1. Summons Cases
Definition: These are cases where the offence is relatively minor, punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment of up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
Procedure: The court issues a summons to the accused to appear and answer the charge, rather than a warrant for arrest.
Examples: Simple hurt, public nuisance, defamation, etc.
Legal Reference: Section 2(x) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Warrant Cases
Definition: These involve more serious offences where the punishment may exceed 2 years imprisonment, or death, or life imprisonment.
Procedure: The court issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused, signifying the gravity of the offence.
Examples: Murder, robbery, rape, dacoity, etc.
Legal Reference: Section 2(xi) of the CrPC.
Key Differences at a Glance
| Aspect | Summons Cases | Warrant Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of offence | Minor offences (punishment up to 2 years) | Serious offences (punishment > 2 years, or death) |
| Process of appearance | Summons issued to accused | Warrant issued for arrest |
| Trial Procedure | More summary and quicker | Full trial with formal procedures |
| Example Offences | Public nuisance, defamation | Murder, robbery, rape |
Case Laws Explaining Summons Cases vs. Warrant Cases
1. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa AIR 1974 SC 1716
Facts: The Supreme Court analyzed whether an offence is warrant or summons case based on the prescribed punishment.
Issue: Whether the trial court can convert a warrant case into summons case.
Judgment: The Court held that classification depends on statutory maximum punishment. A trial court cannot change the nature of the case arbitrarily.
Significance: Clarified that the classification is based strictly on punishment prescribed by law, not on facts or gravity.
2. Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1975 SC 242
Facts: Dispute about the classification of an offence and trial procedure followed.
Issue: Whether the procedure for warrant cases should be followed for serious offences.
Judgment: The Court ruled that trial of warrant cases must follow the procedure laid down for such offences, ensuring proper safeguards.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in warrant cases due to their gravity.
3. Jagadamba v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 549
Facts: The accused was charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment over 2 years.
Issue: Whether the court can issue summons or must issue warrant.
Judgment: It was held that offences with punishment exceeding 2 years must be tried as warrant cases with arrest warrants issued.
Significance: Reaffirmed statutory limits on classification.
4. Mohan Lal v. The State AIR 1932 Lah 112
Facts: The trial court treated a summons case as warrant case.
Issue: Whether this was proper procedure.
Judgment: The court held that procedure for summons cases is simpler, and trial courts must stick to proper procedure according to classification.
Significance: Protected procedural rights of accused in summons cases.
5. Hari Shankar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 Raj 48
Facts: The accused was summoned in a case punishable with imprisonment of exactly 2 years.
Issue: Whether such a case is warrant or summons case.
Judgment: The court held that 2-year maximum punishment is the limit for summons case; beyond 2 years, it becomes warrant case.
Significance: Clarified borderline cases between summons and warrant.
6. Puran Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 2425
Facts: The question arose about procedure for trial in a summons case involving serious allegations.
Issue: Whether courts can conduct full formal trial for summons cases.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while summons cases follow simpler procedures, courts may conduct detailed inquiry if facts demand.
Significance: Allowed flexibility within procedural framework but maintained core distinctions.
Summary
Summons Cases: Minor offences; court summons accused to appear; simpler and faster procedure.
Warrant Cases: Serious offences; court issues arrest warrant; full trial with extensive safeguards.
The classification depends strictly on the maximum punishment prescribed by law.
Courts cannot arbitrarily change the classification.
Procedural safeguards and trial formalities differ significantly between the two.
RELATED Blog
0 comments