By- Meher Sunil Dabrai
Introduction
It is an obligation of a Court or any legislative body to have a full-fledged trial of an accused before passing a judgement as to whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the procedural law that decides the course of the criminal trial based on the substantive criminal law (the Indian Penal Code) and other criminal rules.
The primary object of this system is to ensure that a trial is reasonable. A case that usually undergoes a full trial brings about either conviction or acquaintance. In certain circumstances, the discharge of the accused can also be made without undergoing a full trial.
This can only be done in exceptional circumstances depending on the nature of the alleged offense in the interest of justice and this also depends on the circumstances that may prevail in criminal cases to give the accused a chance for reformation or to avoid the accused from being abused by the law or to save time or to avoid a protracted litigation by which the court may acquit or discharge the accused in accordance with the law.
The provisions that deal with the disposal of a criminal case without trial are as follows:
Criminal proceedings barred by limitation of time
If a primer plea has been raised by the accused saying that the criminal procedures against him are barred by the time constraint that has been stated under the law at that point of time then the ongoing proceedings will be stopped.
If the cognizance of the offence was taken after the lapse of the limitation period as contemplated under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the period of limitation as:
- Six months if the offence is punishable with fine only.
- One year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding more than one year.
- Three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
- For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to the offences which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or as the case may be with the most severe punishment.
Autrefois acquit and autrefois convict
If the accused pleads that he has already been tried for the same offence and has also been acquitted or convicted for the same and that according to the principle of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict he cannot be tried again. Such a proceeding will be barred if the principles laid down under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied.
This is not just a principle or statutory provision under criminal law but is also recognized under the Constitution as a fundamental right.
Section 300 does not affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897 which is pertaining to the offences which are punishable under two or more enactments or Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is pertaining to the offences that are committed outside India. In a situation like this, the dismissal of a complaint or the discharge of the accused will not be considered as an acquittal.
Rejection of a complaint filed for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is simply a complaint for the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient balance in the account of the accused. The offence entails a punishment of a term which may extend for up to two years or a fine which may amount to twice the amount of the cheque or even with both.
In a case like that Alavi Haji v. Palapetti Muhammed[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the drawer or the accused that claims that he did not receive the notice that was sent to him by post can, within 15 days from the receipt of summons from the Court in respect of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act make a payment of the cheque amount and submit proof of the same to the Court that he has made the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the summons and in such a situation, the complaint is liable to be rejected and furthermore, the case will have concluded without the completion of a trial.
Discharge of the accused
When the Magistrate considers that the charge against the accused is groundless, after recording the reasons for the same, the accused can be discharged under the purview of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that reads as:-
“If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”
In the case of Karuppa Servai v. Kundaru[2] the court held that pardon can be granted to the approver only based on the policy of public policy and public interest. If the accomplice has also committed a grave criminal act then he may not be acquitted but his sentence may be reduced.
Conditional Pardon to an accomplice
A witness that turns into an accomplice may be pardoned under the purview of Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The section talks about accomplice witness wherein an accomplice may become a competent witness against the accused person. This is mostly done for major criminal offences that occur in remote and sheltered places.
In a case like that, the police may pick up one of the suspects that may seem to be the least guilty and asks them to turn into a witness and give all the information about the crime and in exchange, offers to pardon him if the information given by him is found to be true. In a case like this, the case that would otherwise have been made against the accomplice stands to be dismissed while the case that has the original action at hand will continue.
The court exercises its powers under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the execution of such a pardon. This section grants the court the authority to direct a tender of pardon at any time after the commencement of a case with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person that is supposed to be in any direct or indirect way privy to the offence that is being dealt with.
In R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi administration[3] it has been held that an accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of the crime that has been charged against the accused. Any other person will just be termed as a witness and not an accomplice for the purpose of Section 133.
Absence or non-appearance of the complainant
Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a warrant case that may be instituted upon the complainant, and on any given day that has been fixed for the hearing of the case, if the complainant is absent and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence then the magistrate has the power to discharge the accused.
If the case is a summons case which has been instituted upon the complainant and the complainant does not appear on any day that has been fixed for the hearing of the case or on any subsequent day then the Magistrate has the wide discretion to either acquit the accused or adjourn the hearing of the case or may dispense with the attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case as per his own discretion.
Withdrawal by prosecution
The Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before passing of the final judgement may withdraw from the prosecution of any person generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which the accused is tried. This can only be done provided that such offences must be provided under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In Rajender Kumar Jain v. State[4], the Supreme court observed that when going ahead with the prosecution of the accused causes or threatens to cause violence, mass agitations or any harm to the public peace, it is okay to withdraw the particular case for the prosecution to protect the general interests of the public at large. The Court held that the narrower public interest of prosecuting the accused has to be sacrificed for the security of the larger public and to maintain peace and tranquility in the country.
Withdrawal by complainant
If a trial of summons case has been initiated by a private complaint, if the complainant at any time before the final order, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds permitting the withdrawal of the complaint against the accused then the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, which leads to the acquittal of the accused as per Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In a trial of warrant case that has initiated on a private complaint; the complainant does not have the power to withdraw the complaint. Section 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant to this exception.
Power of the Court to stop proceedings in certain cases
If a summons case has been instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, the magistrate of the first class or any other judicial magistrate with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate has the power to stop the proceedings of a trial irrespective of the stage at which it might be without pronouncing a judgement. While stopping such a proceeding, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to record his reasons for doing so under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Abatement of proceedings on the death of the accused
The ultimate object of the criminal proceedings is to punish the accused on his conviction of any offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings abate on the death of the accused as the continuance of the trial beyond the death of the accused person will be infructuous and meaningless.
Since this it is evident that if the accused has died, he cannot be punished or held guilty for a crime even though he might have committed it when he was alive. The Code has not made any provisions for the same.
In the recent judgement of the Supreme court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nirmala etc.[5] the Court made an exception and held that merely the death of the main accused does not result in the abatement of the trial and that the trial of the other people that have been accused in the matter shall therefore, continue as per the procedure.
Conclusion
The provisions discussed above are the ones that have generally been followed in the past to dispose a case without a trial to meet the ends of justice depending on the situation that may arise during the pendency of the case.
The disposal of the case without trial saves time and reduces the burden on the judicial system but this can only be achieved in certain cases as most cases involving serious crimes need to be dealt with properly to uphold the judicial system in the country.
References
- indiankanoon.org
- districts.ecourts.gov.in
- blog.ipleaders.in
- Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
- Indian Evidence Act 1872
- Alavi Haji v. Palapetti Muhammed AIR 2007 SC 1705 ↑
- Karuppa Servai v. Kundaru 1953 Crl. L.J. 45 ↑
- R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi administration 1963 SCR (1) 253 ↑
- Rajender Kumar Jain v. State (1980) 3 SCC 435 ↑
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Nirmala etc 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 440 SC ↑