INQUIRY & TRIAL

This article is written by Dharshini P., an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

In this Article a brief explanation of Inquiry and Trial is been discussed. Different types of Inquiry and Trial, procedure for Trial in sessions court are been discussed. Various cases dealing with Inquiry and Trials are also dealt under this Article.

KEYWORDS: Inquiry, Trial, Criminal Offence, Accused, Magistrate.

INTRODUCTION:

Inquiry is a crucial component of the legal system both in India and around the world. It is the first action taken before a trial proceeding commences. Without an investigation, no trial could be held because no one connected to the occurrence would be located. Under the Crpc, investigation is a key support that serves as a means of gathering important information and evidence that can be used to demonstrate whether an offence was committed with a criminal intention or not. All the inquiry carried out under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is a step forward in ascertaining the type of crime that was committed. The people involved in the incident, their knowledge of it, and whatever they witnessed are all included in an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. If the offence so committed is criminal in nature, then the process next turns to the individuals involved in the crime so committed and prepares them for court proceedings. Without investigation, it would be impossible to determine what truly occurred during the happening of the crime. Trial is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. A trial is a legal action that results in a conviction or acquittal but does not result in the release of any parties. It is the investigation and judgement of a legal tribunal about a matter over which it has jurisdiction. When the accused is called to enter a plea in a warrant case, the trial officially starts with the formulation of the charge.

WHAT IS INQUIRY?

In simple terms an inquiry can be referred as an official process to ask questions and to gain information about a particular event. Section 2(g)[1] of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines the term inquiry which includes every such inquiry except the inquiry conducted by a magistrate or court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Every Inquiry is carried out by a Magistrate or the Court of law and not carried out by a Police officer. The Inquiry connects to the process done by the Magistrate before carrying out the trial. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 159[2] authorizes the Magistrate of district to hold an enquiry on receiving a report from the Police as under section 157[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to determine whether an offense is committed by a person or not. If the Magistrate finds that an offense has been committed then he has to determine who should be put on trial. 

TYPES OF INQUIRY. 

There are totally 6 kinds of Inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which are as follows. 

• Judicial Inquiry
• Non-Judicial Inquiry/ Administrative Inquiry
• Preliminary Inquiry
• Local Inquiry
• Inquiry into an offence
• Inquiry into matter other than offence

Judicial Inquiry

Judicial Inquiry involves a judge who had been chosen by the government conducts an investigation of a problem which is of public interest.

Non-Judicial Inquiry/ Administrative Inquiry

Any investigation that is not conducted for the aim of enforcing the law is referred to as a non-judicial inquiry or otherwise known as administrative inquiry. 

Preliminary Inquiry

A preliminary investigation is the one that is conducted before the trial proceeding commences, with the goal of determining whether the offence committed is criminal in nature or the trial should be proceeded. 

Local Inquiry

According to Section 148[4] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 any subordinate magistrate may be appointed by the magistrate to conduct a local investigation. Additionally, the magistrate has the power to issue directions for the investigation and the supervision of the subordinate magistrate.

Inquiry into an offence

An inquiry into an offence can never result in a conviction or dismissal. The inquiry into the offence just builds the prosecution’s case. The general information concerning the offence committed is connected to the inquiry into the offence.

Inquiry into matter other than offence

It includes any inquiry that is based on factors other than the offence, such as general inquiries or inquiries that do not take the specific offence into account.

The Session Court’s proceedings begin in front of a Magistrate for cases that can be tried there. The proceedings may take the form of an inquiry leading up to the accused trial before the Session court.

When a case falls under Section 302[5] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  the magistrate also conducts an inquiry. If a complaint is brought before a magistrate, the magistrate will question the complainant and witnesses under oath to determine whether there is any need for a criminal court to conduct an inquiry.

The complaint may be dismissed if the magistrate doubts the testimony of the complainant and the witnesses. The outcome of the investigation or inquiry does not provide enough support to head the case further. All of these processes follow the inquiry’s format.

CASES FOR INQUIRY

State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr[6].

In this case it was held that the proceeding before the Magistrate would be an inquiry as defined by Section 2(g) of the Code when from the time the accused appears or is produced before the Magistrate with the police report pursuant to Section 170 and the Magistrate proceeds to inquire to ascertain whether Section 207 has been complied with before proceeding to commit the accused to the Court of Session.

Chauthmal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 January, 1982[7]

In this case it was held that the definition of “inquiry” in Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal procedure reveals that it refers to any inquiry other than a trial that is conducted by a Magistrate or Court in accordance with the said Code. The investigation conducted by the magistrate prior to the commitment of the accused to the Court of Session is obviously a “inquiry” as defined in Section 2(g) of the new Code once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence based on a police report and it appears to him that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, as in the present case.

S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari and Ors.1970[8]

In this case it was held that it was determined that the court lacked the authority to order a magisterial inquiry and halt the probe.  The High Court concluded that the judiciary’s roles are distinct from one another and complement one another. It shouldn’t interfere with how other systems operate.

Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994[9]

In this instance, delivering the report to the magistrate is a necessary step in the process and must be done right away to minimise undue delay and ensure the accuracy of the report. In order to prevent further improvisation in the prosecution’s side of the tale and to give the magistrate the opportunity to monitor the development and processing of the inquiry, the report’s transmission to the magistrate is required.

In Alim & Ors v. Taufiq And Anr[10] The court decided that the inquiry constitutes the second step of criminal proceedings and that a magistrate, not a police officer, should conduct it. Trials differ from inquiries in criminal situations. When the trial starts, the inquiry ends. A criminal inquiry never results in the accused being found guilty or innocent.

WHAT IS A TRIAL?

The term Trial generally refers to the decision of a Court or judicial judgement pronounced by the Court in order to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent. A Trial proceeding is a key pillar in a criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 190 empowers the Magistrate of the court, that he may declare an offence to have been committed if he receives any of the following information:

 (a) a complaint containing the facts constituting the offence;

 (b) a police report containing the same information; or

 (c) information from a source other than a police officer or his own knowledge.

Any magistrate of the second class may be given permission by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to file a complaint under subsection (1) of section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for any offences that fall under his purview to inquire or try. 

The procedure to carry out the trial before a Sessions Court is given under section 225 to 237 of Crpc. Section 225 of Crpc states that in every trial proceeding before the Court of Sessions, the prosecution shall be carried out by a Public Prosecutor. Section 226 states that when the accused is brought before the court relating to a case under section 209, the Prosecutor opens the case by stating the charge filed against the accused and about the evidences he produced in the court to prove the guilt of the accused. Under section 227 the Judge may after observing all the statements and evidences made by the Prosecutor and the accused and after recording the details of necessary documents related to the case, discharge the accused. The court constructs a charge under section 228 if the judge believes the documents, records, and statements of both parties were sufficient to establish the grounds for further proceedings against the accused. Now, two ideas enter the picture: first, the court’s jurisdiction; if the case cannot be tried by the Court of Session, the judge may refer it to a higher authority, such as the Chief Judicial Magistrate or another Magistrate of the first class; second, if the court has jurisdiction over the case, the judge will move forward by formulating the charges against the accused. If the accused declines to enter a plea, the court sets a date for the testimony of the case’s witnesses. The court may ask the prosecution for any supporting evidence on the designated date after the date has been set. Depending on the judge’s discretion, the witnesses may also be subjected to cross-examination at this point. The Section 231 refers to the entire process. According to Section 232 of the Code, an accused person is declared innocent if the charges against them cannot be proven through the accused’s testimony, the prosecution’s claims, or the defense’s arguments. In accordance with Section 233, the accused may be called and asked to provide evidence in his favour if, he is not found not guilty. The discussion of arguments and the choice of whether to hold the accused accountable or release them is explained in Sections 234 and 235, respectively[11].

Types of Trial

There are four major types of trial which are as follows

1. Warrant Case
2. Sessions case
3. Summons cases
4. Summary cases

Warrant case

A warrant case is one that involves crimes that are punishable by death, life in prison, or a period of imprisonment more than two years. As stated in the Crpc, Magistrates handle warrant proceedings under sections 238–250.

Trials involving warrants are further divided into two types:

Cases started as a result of a police report In essence, a police report is a report that a magistrate receives from a police officer pursuant to Section 173. As soon as the police have finished their investigation and the defendant has appeared before a magistrate before the trial begins, they should send their report.

Cases established without the use of a police report: In certain situations, no investigation or police report is necessary. A complaint that is presented to the magistrate is directly received by him.

Sessions case

In such circumstances, the trial must be handled in a Sessions court after the matter has already been forwarded by a Magistrate to the Court or after the conduct of the crime. These are the cases where the offences subject to penalty by law include death or life imprisonment for a duration longer than seven years.

Summons cases

Section 251 to 259 deals with Trial of Summons cases by Magistrate. These are the situations where offences that carry a sentence of less than two years fall under the category of summons cases, and there is also no necessity to frame the charges in these situations. After determining certain instances, the Court issues a “notice” to the accused as evidence of the charge. If there is even the slightest chance that the charges in summons cases could be changed to warrant cases in the eyes of the magistrate for upholding the law.

Summary cases

Section 260 to 265 deals with Summary Trials. Summary trials are essentially those types of trials where quick justice must be administered, which implies those cases that have to be resolved quickly and the process of these cases is extremely streamlined. One thing that needs to be made clear is that only minor infractions are included in summary proceedings; situations that are intricate and substantial are saved for summons or warrant trials. One might easily bring up the idea that “justice delayed is justice denied” in cases of this nature.

CASES ON TRIAL

Narotamdas L. Shah v. Pathak Nathalal Sukhram And Anr.[12],

The witnesses were cross-examined after the accused was found guilty of defamation, and the magistrate decided that the case should be transferred. The accused then demanded a second hearing of the witnesses, but the magistrate responded that the accused can only exercise this right during a trial and this case was only in the inquiry stage. The Sessions Court judge believed that it was improper to set aside the accuser’s demand. In this case, the Gujarat High Court overturned the Magistrate’s order by ruling that the trial in warrant cases begins once the offender has been brought before the Magistrate.

Government Of Bombay vs Abdul Wahab on 17 September, 1945[13]

In accordance with Section 238, even though an accused cannot be charged with a minor offence, he can still be found guilty of it. Section 238 requires a necessary implication that if an accused is found not guilty of a major offence, he is also presumed not guilty of all minor offences that are included in it, unless he is found guilty under Section 238.

Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi).[14]

The Supreme Court noted that under Section 251 Cr.P.C., it is the Trial Court’s bounden duty to determine whether the offence against the accused is made out or not and to acquit the accused if there is no case to answer.

State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah And Ors[15].

The phrase “if he thinks fit” included in the aforementioned Section 260 suggests that a case shouldn’t be tried summarily just because it is capable of being done so. The decision is up to the magistrate’s discretion, which must, of course, be made legally, carefully, and in light of the facts of each instance. It might not be possible to determine whether or not a matter should be handled summarily based just on the claims in the complaint. Therefore, the case’s facts and circumstances as well as the complainant’s testimony must be considered in order to answer the question.

CONCLUSION
The investigation step is typically followed by the inquiry phase, which also determines if the evidence the police have gathered is accurate or not and whether it represents the crime that was committed. The terms inquiry and investigation are sometimes confused, although there is a substantial difference between the two since the former deals with the criminality of the offence and the latter with the gathering of evidence. Trial refers to the judgment or decision made by a Court to determine whether or not a person is guilty or innocent. There are four major kinds of Trial which are discussed in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

REFERENCES.

1. Section 2(g) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132965/ last seen on 24.04.2023.
2. [1]Section 159 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/244234/ last seen on 24.04.2023.
3. [1] Section 157 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/279174/ last seen on 24.04.2023.
4. [1] Section 148 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/279174/ last seen on 24.04.2023.
5. [1] Section 302 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1983271/ last seen on 24.04.2023.
6. [1] State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr 1983 AIR 439, 1983 SCR (2) 537
7. [1] Chauthmal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 January, 19821982 CriLJ 1403, 1982 WLN 396
8. [1] S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari and Ors.19701970 AIR 786, 1970 SCR (3) 946
9. [1] Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar,1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 372 JT 1994 (2) 627
10. [1] Alim & Ors v. Taufiq And Anr 1982 CriLJ 1264
    [1]Section 204 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1604716/ last seen on 24.04.2023
11. [1]Narotamdas L. Shah v. Pathak Nathalal Sukhram And Anr 1953 CriLJ 1307
12. [1] Government Of Bombay vs Abdul Wahab on 17 September, (1945) 47 BOMLR 998
13. [1] Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424
14. [1] State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah And Ors. (1996) 2 GLR 643
    
    
    
    

---

[1] Section 2(g) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132965/ last seen on 24.04.2023.

[2]Section 159 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/244234/ last seen on 24.04.2023.

[3] Section 157 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/279174/ last seen on 24.04.2023.

[4] Section 148 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/279174/ last seen on 24.04.2023.

[5] Section 302 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1983271/ last seen on 24.04.2023.

[6] State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr 1983 AIR 439, 1983 SCR (2) 537

[7] Chauthmal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 January, 19821982 CriLJ 1403, 1982 WLN 396

[8] S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari and Ors.19701970 AIR 786, 1970 SCR (3) 946

[9] Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar,1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 372 JT 1994 (2) 627

[10] Alim & Ors v. Taufiq And Anr  1982 CriLJ 1264

[11]Section 204 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1604716/ last seen on 24.04.2023

[12]Narotamdas L. Shah v. Pathak Nathalal Sukhram And Anr 1953 CriLJ 1307

[13] Government Of Bombay vs Abdul Wahab on 17 September, (1945) 47 BOMLR 998

[14] Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424

[15] State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah And Ors. (1996) 2 GLR 643