Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath Report First pages - Ministry of Home Affairs

146
final order under S.373 or 374(3), “a brief statement of the reasons for the
decision” shall also be recorded. The procedure that Metropolitan Magistrates
can follow under S.355 is akin to summary procedure.
10.5 Sub-Section (2) of S.260, provides that if in the course of the
summary trial, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that
it is undesirable to try it summarily, he shall recall any witnesses who may have
been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the
Code.
10.6 The procedure for recording evidence varies according to the form
of trial. Section 274 Cr.P.C., prescribes that in summons cases and inquiries,
“the Magistrate shall, as the examination of each witness proceeds, make a
memorandum of the substance of the evidence in the language of the Court”.
The proviso enables the Magistrate to cause such memorandum to be made in
writing or from his dictation in open Court” where the Magistrate is unable to
make such memorandum himself and records reasons for his inability.
10.7 S.376 (d)., provides that no appeal from a convicted person shall
lie when a sentence of fine only is passed not exceeding Rs.200/- in a case tried
summarily by the Magistrate empowered under section 260.
10.8 But it is a matter of lament that in response to the Question
No.10.21 in the Questionnaire issued by the Committee, it has been brought out
that S.260 and 355 are either unutilized or under-utilized.
10.9 Only those Magistrates (Other than CJMs and MMs) who are duly
empowered, either by name, or by virtue of office, or under the statute creating
the offence can try the cases summarily. But most of the Magistrates are not
empowered. This is one among the many reasons why summary procedures is
not fully utilized. As the Judge of the same status can deal with the case
summarily when he is posted as a metropolitan Judge without any
empowerment there is no reason why such empowerment is needed for other
magistrates to deal with the cases summarily under Section 262 of the Code
10.10 Under Section 262 the maximum punishment that can be imposed
is 3 months. Under the negotiable instruments Act, Prevention of food
adulteration Act, the offences can be tried summarily under S.262 for which
imprisonment of one year can be imposed as a sentence. The Judge of the same
status sitting as Metropolitan Magistrate following the procedures similar to
summary procedure prescribed by S.355 can impose a sentence up to three years
imprisonment. There is therefore clear justification to enhance the limit