Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Difference between session trial and warrent trial

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sun, Jun 7, 20, 13:07, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
4 out of 5 with 8 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13561
This article talks about the difference between session trial and warrent trial

 


Difference between Session trial and warrant trial

Process of session trial: 
Session Court deals with criminal matters at a district level. To be more accurate these offences are of more serious nature, the session court does not have the power to take cognizance only under Section 199 of the CrPC it can take cognizance in all other cases the cognizance will be taken by Magistrate and commit the trail.
Initial Stage:
It is very simple and easy to understand the initial stage with the help of the illustration– In a courtroom, the public prosecutor will act as one side and the accused person will be the other party in the matter. Here, the court expects that all the necessary documents need to be given to an accused person in advance so he has a clear idea of why the trail is being taken place.
Public Prosecutor is appointed under Section 24 of the Act, who is acting under the direction of such a prosecutor.  
When the case is brought under Section 209 of the CrPC then in those conditions public prosecutor needs to present the piece of evidence so the trail can be started without any delay. All the details regarding what all charges are framed against him need to be mentioned in a court of law. After this stage, if the magistrate feels that there is no case regarding the accused person then he will be discharged.
In Kewal krishan vs. Suraj Bhan, to avoid unnecessary harassment to the person without any ground as a reasonable ground needs to be given for going to appeal under Supreme Court.
In the case of Prafulla Kumar samal vs. Union of India, four principles were introduced which should be kept in mind while deciding the case that prima facie case should be made against the accused person and test relating to it differ from case to case.
But if the commission of presumption arises in two aspects:
1. Court of the session can exclusively deal with the case, by writing charges by the court under Section 228 (1)(b) of the Act.

2. If the Court of the session cannot deal with the matter then some other courts have the proper jurisdiction to deal exclusively with the matter by transferring the case to the Competent court or to appropriate CJM or JM of the first class.
Further, the charges made against the accused body will be explained to him in a language that he can easily understand so that no violation takes place due to which delay can be made in the proceeding. If the plea is guilty of the offence committed by him then he may get punished.
Second Stage of the Trial:
If the accused person pleads his guilt then he will be punished as per the nature of punishment and he will get convicted and if he did not plead then the court will fix a date for going through a further process like examination of a witness, production of any document, etc. He needs to plead guilty from his own mouth, not by his pleader. Any admission made by his leader is not binding in nature.
The court needs to have all pieces of evidence which are presented in the case and during the cross-examination stage.
In Prem Kumar vs. the State of Karnataka, it was held that before framing of charges, the court needs to see that documents placed before the court whether FIR or any statement given by witnesses disclosing the ingredients of the alleged offence.
In Suresh Kumar vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, the accused person is entitled to get copies of the statement of the complaint before the charges are framed.
Third Stage of the Trial:  
It is the last stage where the accused person is either convicted or acquittal. The court may acquit the accused person if no evidence is laid down which indicates the involvement of the accused in committing the Act.
If no acquittal took place then, the accused get the opportunity to present his case through writing or any other means he can produce evidence, witnesses to defend himself just like the way prosecution did it. An omission on the part of the Judge is the failure of justice. An accused person can apply for an application for compelling the attendance of a witness, all such application needs to be accepted by the court. He can only deny in a situation where he is sure that such application is vexatious in nature just to waste the precious time of the court. After hearing both the side, when the issue arises for giving a closing statement that Section 314 of the Act applies and the Closing statement is given by defense under Section 234 and under Section 235 by the prosecution side.
Before giving a final verdict, the previous conviction checked to see and relate the liability of the accused person in the present case. According to a previous conviction, punishment is decided by the Court of law. Lastly, the defamation of higher dignities cases are handled by the public prosecutor and compensation will be paid by the accused person to the other party for wasting their time and money.
Final judgment should be made by the judge by keeping in mind all the evidence, witnesses and argument. The process of acquittal will be done as per Section 232and whereas provision regarding conviction is mentioned under Section 235. A judge should pass the sentence of punishment as prescribed in law.
Warrant trial:
What is a Warrant  Case?
Warrant case includes offence punishable with the death penalty, imprisonment for life and imprisonment for exceeding two years.  A trial in warrant case begins either by filing an FIR in Police Station or by filing it before Magistrate.
Section 238 to 243 of CrPC so, let’s start with the study. Firstly let’s understand that warrant trial is based on 2 types of cases
1.     On the Police Report.
2.     Other than the Police Report.
The procedure of Trial in warrant cases by magistrates:
1. Compliance with Section 207
2. When accused shall be discharged
3. Framing of charge
4. Conviction on a plea of guilty
5. Evidence for Prosecution
6. Evidence for Defense Side
7. Evidence for Prosecution
8. When accused shall be discharged
9. Again Evidence for Defense
10. Acquittal or conviction
11. Absence of Complaint
12. Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause
Compliance with Section 207: When any warrant case is filed on the Police report, then the accused is brought before the magistrate for the recommencement of trial and magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has resulted in Section 207 provisions.
When accused shall be discharged: If upon seeing the police report and the documents sent under Section 173 for making such examination. After hearing both the side and considering all relevant points, if magistrate thinks that charges framed against the accused person are clearly groundless, then he shall discharge the accused and reason should be recorded for doing this act.
Framing of Charge: After considering the examination, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence then it will be triable by the competent magistrate to give accurate punishment and frame charges against the accused. Charges framed against him will be explained to him and later on, it will be seen that he pleaded guilty or not.

Conclusion
Under Session trail, we went through all the complex path which are included in conducting the trial before a Court of Session. Initially, the court decide that whether any ground is present against the accused person for conducting trial, all the evidence and documents are produced before the Court and at last by keeping in mind all the points and evidence magistrate gives the final decision which can be either Acquittal or Conviction and under Warrant case two conditions are given if the complaint is done by the police report or without police report the Informant directly file a complaint to the magistrate, in this case, the accused person will be produced before the magistrate and he will be examined in court, finds out no relevant ground then he will be discharged otherwise the further procedure will continue and the accused person will be given the opportunity to plead for the offence committed by him. Later both the side will present their case with the support of witnesses and evidence and argument, cross-examination, and re-examination will be conducted and at last by hearing both sides, the magistrate will decide the quantum of punishment for the accused person.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
jitendrasinghbhadouriya435
Member since Jun 6, 2020
Location: n/a
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top