Section 254 CrPC: Procedure when not convicted

Chapter XX

Defence evidence, due process, evidence, Fair trial, magistrate's power, production of documents, prosecution evidence, summons case, trial procedure, Witness summons

New Law Update (2024)

Section 260 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Magistrate's Court

Punishment

Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or Section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) A Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 254(1)

This sub-section outlines the core procedure for a summons case when an accused is not immediately convicted, mandating the Magistrate to meticulously hear and record all evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence to ensure a fair trial.

Section 254(2)

This sub-section empowers the Magistrate to issue summons for any witness to attend or to produce documents or other things, upon receiving an application from either the prosecution or the accused, if the Magistrate deems it fit for the proceedings.

Landmark Judgements

S.M. Jaiswal v. The State (1975 Cr.L.J. 1494, Delhi High Court):

This judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 254(1) of the CrPC, holding that the Magistrate is bound to take all evidence produced by both the prosecution and the defence, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. (2009 (1) MPLJ 242, Madhya Pradesh High Court):

The Court reiterated that a Magistrate cannot refuse to provide an opportunity to lead evidence under Section 254 merely because he believes such evidence is unnecessary, highlighting the fundamental right of parties to present their proof.

Nalini v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 189, Madras High Court):

This ruling clarified the discretionary power of the Magistrate under Section 254(2) to issue witness summons, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and for advancing the ends of justice, not arbitrarily.

Chapter XX