This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.99 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3 of 1999,2 of 1999 thereby inter alia ordered to proceed with the trial by following the procedure prescribed in a summon case. The learned Court below further held that the provision of section 251 CrPC can be still complied with as the stage of the trial was only in the cross examination of PW 1 who is the complainant herself. Therefore, no injustice/prejudice has been caused to any of the parties.

2.1 have heard Mr. Ng Premkumar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Ng Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The sole question posed for determination in this petition is, whether the complaint under section 499 IPC, and the punishment prescribed under section 500 IPC is to be tried by following the procedure prescribed in a summon case or in a warrant case. To answer this question, it would be necessary to understand what is a summon case and what is a warrant case. Summon case has been defined in section 2 (w) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads:

“2. (w) 'Summons case' means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case.”

Further, warrant case has been define^ in section 2 (x). It reads :

“2. (x) Warrant case means a case relating to an offence, punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.” (emphasis supplied).

Punishment prescribed in section 500 IPC is simple imprisonment for two l years or with fine or both.”

4. A fascicule reading of the definitions of summon case and warrant case and punishment prescribed under section 500 IPC, it clearly posits that, an offence punishable under section 500 IPC, the procedure prescribed in a Summon Case is to be followed inasmuch as the punishment prescribed under section 500 IPC is simple imprisonment for two years or with fine or both. The punishment prescribed a in Warrant Case is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or an imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. It would be noticed that the maximum punishment awardable for an offence under section 500 IPC is upto two years.

5. It is, however, contended by Mr. Ng Premkumar that punishment prescribed under section 500 IPC is coupled with fine or with both, and in the l event of payment of fine along with punishment is imposed, and the accused did not pay the fine amount, in default he has to undergo further imprisonment, and in such event, according to the learned counsel, punishment would exceed two years, and therefore, it is triable in accordance with the procedure prescribed in a Warrant Case. This submission, in my view is based on misconception of law. Criminal trial commences in accordance with the offences punishable prescribed under the section for which the accused is charged. Therefore, during the trial, only the substantive portion of the sentence prescribed under the section has to be looked into. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel has no substance and contrary to the provision of law.

6. Next, k is contended by Mr. Prem Kumar that, under section 259 of the CrPC, a Magistrate is empowered to convert Summons Cases into Warrant Cases and not vice versa, and therefore, the Court below was erred in converting the Warrant Cases into Summon Case by the impugned order. This submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that, by the impugned order the Magistrate did not convert the Warrant Case into Summon Case. It is because of this allegation the lower Court records has been called for and on perusal of the records it is noticed that throughout the proceedings the procedure prescribed in Summon Cases, has been followed. Therefore, there is no question of conversion of Warrant Cases into Summon Cases in the instant case. The only noticeable irregularities that appears to have been committed by the trial Court is that, the particulars of the offence has not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document