The definitions in section 2(1), BNSS 2023

“Warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.

“Summons-case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case — so it is defined negatively, by exclusion.

📖 Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736

Facts: A Magistrate issued process on a complaint, and the order was challenged on the footing that the material did not warrant it and that the complaint was false. The question was the nature of the Magistrate’s satisfaction at that stage and the extent to which it may be examined.

Held: The Supreme Court held that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is required to be satisfied only that there is sufficient ground for proceeding — not that there is sufficient ground for conviction. He has to see whether, on the material, a prima facie case is made out, and is not to embark on an enquiry into whether the evidence is likely to succeed, whether it is reliable, or whether the complaint is true. The Court held that the order issuing process may be interfered with only in limited categories: where the allegations, even taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged; where there is no legal evidence in support, or the evidence manifestly fails to prove the charge; where the Magistrate’s discretion has been exercised capriciously or arbitrarily; or where the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fides or was filed with an ulterior motive.

Ratio: At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate must be satisfied only that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction. He is not to enquire into the reliability or truth of the complaint, and the order is interfered with only in limited categories.

📖 Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627

Facts: An application was made to a Magistrate complaining of an offence and asking that the police be directed to investigate. The question was what the Magistrate’s options were, and whether a direction to investigate requires the application to be treated as a complaint and the complainant examined on oath.

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a Magistrate is moved by an application disclosing a cognizable offence and is asked to direct an investigation, he may do so without taking cognizance and without examining the complainant on oath — the examination on oath being required only where he takes cognizance on the complaint and proceeds under the complaint procedure. The Court held that the two courses are distinct: a direction to investigate sets the police in motion and results in a police report, whereas taking cognizance on a complaint leads to an inquiry by the Magistrate and, if he is satisfied, to the issue of process. It held that the form of the application is immaterial — what matters is what the Magistrate does with it — and that a Magistrate who directs an investigation has not taken cognizance, so that he remains free to do so later on the report.

Ratio: A Magistrate asked to direct an investigation on an application disclosing a cognizable offence may do so without taking cognizance or examining the complainant on oath. The two courses are distinct, and the form of the application is immaterial.

⚠ Three further points

Summary trials are a third level. Section 283 permits certain summons cases to be tried summarily, where the procedure is shorter still and the sentence is capped at three months. So the Sanhita provides not two levels of procedure but three, each matched to what is at stake.

The classification depends on the offence, not the sentence expected. A warrant case does not become a summons case because the Magistrate thinks a short sentence likely; the test is the punishment the offence carries.

Where several offences are charged, the case is a warrant case if any one of them satisfies the test — the more elaborate procedure being applied to the whole.

And conversion runs one way only. Section 282 permits a summons case to be tried as a warrant case where that emerges, with the witnesses recalled; there is no provision for converting a warrant case into a summons case.

The position stated shortly

1. A warrant case relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding two years. A summons case is any other — defined negatively.

2. A warrant case is tried under Chapter XX; a summons case under Chapter XXI.

3. In a warrant case a formal charge is framed; in a summons case the substance of the accusation is stated and no charge is framed.

4. In a warrant case the accused may be discharged where the charge is groundless; a summons case has no provision for discharge.

5. In a summons case the complainant may withdraw with the Magistrate’s consent, and the accused is acquitted; a warrant case has no such provision.

6. Section 282 permits a summons case to be tried as a warrant case where that emerges, the witnesses being recalled. There is no conversion the other way.

7. The differences exist because the stake is different: the elaborateness of the procedure is calibrated to what the accused stands to lose.

8. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate must be satisfied only that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction: Nagawwa.

9. A Magistrate asked to direct an investigation may do so without taking cognizance or examining the complainant on oath — the two courses being distinct: Mohd. Yousuf.

10. Section 283 adds a third level: certain summons cases may be tried summarily, with the sentence capped at three months.