Trial Procedures In Sessions Court Magistrates Court And Special Tribunals
🧾 1. Introduction
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) lays down detailed procedures for conducting trials in different courts depending on the gravity of the offence and the competence of the court.
The main purpose of a trial is to ensure fair adjudication, protect the rights of the accused, and uphold the rule of law.
Criminal trials are broadly divided into:
Sessions Trials – for serious offences (like murder, rape, dacoity).
Magistrate Trials – for less serious offences.
Special Tribunal Trials – for specific categories (like NDPS, POCSO, CBI, etc.).
⚖️ 2. Types of Criminal Trials under CrPC
(A) Trial before a Court of Session (Sections 225–237 CrPC)
Applicable for:
Offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session (e.g., murder, rape, attempt to murder, etc.).
Procedure:
Case Commitment (Section 209):
Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session after supplying all documents (FIR, charge-sheet, etc.) to the accused.
Opening of Prosecution Case (Section 226):
Public Prosecutor explains charges and evidence.
Discharge (Section 227):
If the judge finds no sufficient ground for proceeding, the accused is discharged.
Framing of Charge (Section 228):
If a prima facie case exists, the judge frames charges and asks for plea.
Recording of Prosecution Evidence (Section 231):
Witnesses are examined and cross-examined.
Statement of Accused (Section 313):
Accused is questioned to explain evidence against him.
Defence Evidence (Section 233):
Accused may produce evidence in his defence.
Arguments and Judgment (Sections 234–235):
Final arguments are heard, and judgment (conviction/acquittal) is delivered.
(B) Trial before Magistrates (Sections 238–259 CrPC)
Magistrate trials are divided into three categories depending on the nature of offence:
1. Warrant Cases (Sections 238–250)
Offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding 2 years.
May arise on police report (charge-sheet) or private complaint.
Procedure:
Framing of charge (Section 240).
Plea of accused.
Prosecution and defence evidence.
Arguments and judgment.
2. Summons Cases (Sections 251–259)
For minor offences (punishable ≤ 2 years).
Procedure is simplified — no formal charges, only explanation of accusation.
Summary disposal encouraged if accused pleads guilty.
3. Summary Trials (Sections 260–265)
Conducted by specially empowered Magistrates for petty offences (e.g., traffic violations, small thefts).
Quick disposal with minimal formalities.
Maximum sentence: 3 months imprisonment.
(C) Trials before Special Courts/Tribunals
Special Courts are established under special laws, e.g.:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
These courts follow special procedures prescribed under respective statutes but generally align with the CrPC principles — ensuring fair trial, cross-examination, and right to defence.
⚖️ 3. Objectives of Trial Procedures
To ensure fair hearing.
To maintain transparency and accountability.
To protect constitutional rights of accused (Articles 20, 21, and 22).
To prevent miscarriage of justice.
🧑‍⚖️ 4. Landmark Case Laws
(1) Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (Best Bakery Case) (2004) 4 SCC 158
Facts:
In the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat riots, several people were burnt alive in the Best Bakery incident. Witnesses turned hostile in the trial before the Magistrate, leading to acquittal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
“A fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence; failure of justice on account of procedural lapses cannot be allowed.”
The Court ordered retrial in another state to ensure justice.
Significance:
Reinforced the right to fair trial under Article 21 and held that trial courts must not become “silent spectators” when justice is being subverted.
(2) State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715
Facts:
The trial court acquitted the accused due to irregularities in investigation, such as faulty recording of statements.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
“Even if there are lapses in investigation, the trial court must independently assess evidence on record before acquittal.”
Significance:
Emphasized that trial procedure cannot be compromised due to investigation flaws. The judge must evaluate material evidence objectively.
(3) Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766
Facts:
The accused in a murder case sought discharge before trial, claiming that prosecution evidence was insufficient.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the judge must apply judicial mind to determine whether there is a prima facie case.
If not, the accused must be discharged to prevent unnecessary trial.
Significance:
Clarified the importance of pre-trial scrutiny in Sessions Court to prevent abuse of process and wrongful prosecution.
(4) P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
Facts:
The issue was whether a fixed time limit should be prescribed for completion of criminal trials to avoid delays.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that no rigid time frame can be fixed for criminal trials as each case is different.
However, the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance:
Recognized “speedy trial” as an essential part of fair procedure and directed courts to prevent undue delay in trials at all levels — Magistrate, Sessions, and Special Courts.
(5) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
In a criminal trial, the prosecution wanted to record a witness’s statement through video conferencing since the witness was abroad.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
“Recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible under the CrPC as long as it ensures cross-examination and procedural fairness.”
Significance:
Expanded the scope of modern trial procedure — establishing that fairness of trial is not limited to physical presence, but to procedural integrity and opportunity to defend.
🧩 5. Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| Right to fair trial | Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (Best Bakery) | Courts must prevent miscarriage of justice |
| Investigation defects ≠trial failure | K. Yarappa Reddy | Courts must rely on evidence, not investigation errors |
| Prima facie case necessary for trial | Satish Mehra | Prevents unnecessary prosecution |
| Speedy trial as a fundamental right | P. Ramachandra Rao | Ensures timely justice under Article 21 |
| Use of technology in trial | Dr. Praful Desai | Video conferencing evidence legally valid |
🏛️ 6. Conclusion
The trial process under the CrPC reflects a balance between societal interest in punishment of offenders and protection of the accused’s fundamental rights.
Sessions Courts deal with grave offences requiring rigorous procedure.
Magistrates’ Courts ensure expeditious disposal of minor offences.
Special Tribunals focus on specific areas like corruption, terrorism, or sexual offences.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence emphasizes:
Fairness over formality,
Speedy justice without haste, and
Judicial independence as the ultimate guardian of liberty.
In essence, a trial is not just about punishing the guilty — it is about ensuring that no innocent is punished, and justice both appears and is done.
RELATED Blog
comments