Section 260 CrPC vs Section 283 BNSS — Summary Trials (CrPC 260-265)

In India, Sections 283 to 288 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. Summary trial of listed petty offences is now mandatory, the theft value limit rises from ₹2,000 to ₹20,000, and a new three-year discretionary band carries no appeal.

At a glance

The listed offences (Section 283(1) BNSS against Section 260(1) CrPC):

What changed

• Modified — who tries, and whether they must: Section 260(1) empowered "any Chief Judicial Magistrate", "any Metropolitan Magistrate" and "any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court", who "may, if he thinks fit, try in a summary way". Section 283(1) names "any Chief Judicial Magistrate" and "Magistrate of the first class", who "shall try in a summary way". Section 6 BNSS lists Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the first and second class and Executive Magistrates; it lists no Metropolitan Magistrates.
• Modified — value limit: "two thousand rupees" in clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 260(1) (substituted for "two hundred rupees" by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23 June 2006) becomes "twenty thousand rupees" in clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 283(1).
• Expanded — criminal intimidation: Section 260(1)(vi) listed only "criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both". Section 283(1)(v) lists "criminal intimidation, under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 351". Section 351(3) BNS is the aggravated form punishable up to seven years.
• New — Section 283(2): "The Magistrate may, after giving the accused a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for reasons to be recorded in writing, try in a summary way all or any of the offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years". Proviso: "no appeal shall lie against the decision of a Magistrate to try a case in a summary way under this sub-section." The two-year class in Section 260(1)(i) is not carried into Section 283(1).
• Minor edits — Sections 283(3), 285 and 286: "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita"; Section 286(f) refers to "clause (i), clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 283" instead of clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 260(1).
• Identical — Sections 287 and 288, and the text of Section 284 (the heading of Section 284 drops "the" before "second class").

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 260(1) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

(c) any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, may, if he thinks fit, try in a summary way all or any of the following offences:— (i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;

Extract, Section 283(1) and (2) BNSS:

(b) Magistrate of the first class, shall try in a summary way all or any of the following offences:— (i) theft, under sub-section (2) of section 303, section 305 or section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 where the value of the property stolen does not exceed twenty thousand rupees;

(2) The Magistrate may, after giving the accused a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for reasons to be recorded in writing, try in a summary way all or any of the offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years: Provided that no appeal shall lie against the decision of a Magistrate to try a case in a summary way under this sub-section.

How it works — the steps

1. Is the offence on the Section 283(1) list? If so, and the value limit is met where one applies, a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class "shall" try it summarily.
2. If not, is it punishable up to three years? The Magistrate may choose summary trial under Section 283(2), but only after hearing the accused and recording reasons. That decision cannot be appealed.
3. Second-class Magistrates: only if empowered by the High Court, and only for offences punishable with fine or up to six months (Section 284).
4. Procedure: the summons-case procedure applies except as the Chapter provides (Section 285(1)); the record of examination of the accused under Section 316 does not apply (Section 316(5)).
5. Sentence: no imprisonment above three months (Section 285(2)).
6. Record and judgment: the Magistrate enters the particulars in Section 286 (serial number, dates, parties, offence, value of property, plea, finding, sentence). If the accused does not plead guilty, he records the substance of the evidence and a judgment with a brief statement of reasons (Section 287), in the language of the court (Section 288).
7. Switching out: if it appears undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate recalls any witnesses examined and re-hears the case under the ordinary procedure (Section 283(3)).

What this means in practice

For the accused and defence advocate

• In a Section 283(2) case, use the opportunity of being heard before the decision; the proviso bars an appeal against it. On a reading of the text, the proviso bars an appeal against the decision to try summarily, not against the eventual conviction or sentence.
• A summary conviction carries at most three months' imprisonment (Section 285(2)). Under Section 417(d) BNSS there is no appeal where, in a case tried summarily, a Magistrate empowered under Section 283 passes only a fine not exceeding ₹200, unless another punishment is combined with it.
• Section 303(2) BNS prescribes a minimum of one year for a second or subsequent theft conviction. On a reading of Sections 283(3) and 285(2), a case where that minimum is in play cannot end in a sentence within the three-month cap, which is a ground to ask the Magistrate to re-hear it under the ordinary procedure.

For the prosecutor and complainant

• The ₹20,000 limit applies to the value of the property stolen, received or concealed. Put the valuation on record; Section 286(f) requires it to be entered.
• If the Magistrate is transferred mid-trial, Section 365(3) BNSS means the successor cannot act on the evidence his predecessor recorded in a summary trial; see J.V. Baharuni below.

For the court

• A special summons for a petty offence under Section 229 BNSS may be used where the case "may be summarily disposed of under section 283 or section 284"; the fine specified in it may not exceed ₹5,000 (it was ₹1,000 under Section 206 CrPC).

Cheque-dishonour cases: Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 still applies "sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code" to trials of Chapter XVII offences, allows imprisonment up to one year, and requires the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, to record an order before switching to ordinary trial. Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 construes references to a repealed and re-enacted provision as references to the re-enacted one "unless a different intention appears"; on a reading of that text, the reference now points to Sections 285 to 288 BNSS.

Judgments that still matter

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1996] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 392 — 7 May 1996. M.M. Punchhi and K.S. Paripoornan JJ. (judgment by Punchhi J.) considered a summary conviction under Section 294 IPC on a plea of guilt, with a fine of ₹20, recorded only in a summary register. The Court said that Section 264 CrPC requires the substance of the evidence and a brief judgment where the accused does not plead guilty, and that even on a plea of guilt "the Magistrate is not absolved of the obligation to record the substance of the evidence"; where the substance of the allegations is not put to the accused, "his entering any kind of plea is no plea legally". It allowed the appeal in the service dispute and drew Parliament's attention to the effect of small-fine summary convictions, suggesting that fines up to about ₹2,000 not be treated as convictions; that was a suggestion, not a direction. The report shows no paragraph numbers. Section 287 BNSS repeats Section 264.

J.V. Baharuni & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1061 (2014 INSC 732) — 16 October 2014. Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana JJ. read Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as requiring the Magistrate to try cheque cases summarily, applying Sections 262 to 265 CrPC as far as may be, unless he records that summary trial is undesirable (paras 25-26). It held that a case triable summarily but in substance tried as a regular summons case does not fall within Section 326(3) CrPC, so the successor Magistrate may act under Section 326(1) without a de novo trial (para 37). It allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments ordering de novo trial and remanded the matters to the High Court for consideration on merits (para 64). Section 365 BNSS repeats Section 326 with drafting changes and renumbered cross-references (Sections 361 and 364 for 322 and 325).

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881, [2021] 4 S.C.R. 257 (2021 INSC 257) — 16 April 2021. In an order of a five-Judge Bench (S.A. Bobde C.J., L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat JJ.), the Court noted that complaints were being converted from summary to summons trial "mechanically without reasons being recorded" and held that the discretion to convert must be exercised with care, after recording reasons (para 9). It held that the words "as far as may be" in Section 143 relate only to the applicability of Sections 262 to 265 CrPC, and that Meters and Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta was not good law in so far as it conferred a power to discharge the accused by reading in Section 258 (para 20). It requested High Courts to issue practice directions to record reasons before converting a trial (para 24(1)).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, a summary trial pending on that date continues under Sections 260 to 265 CrPC. Section 531(2)(b) deems powers conferred under the CrPC and in force on that date to have been conferred under the corresponding BNSS provisions; this covers, on a reading of the text, a High Court's empowerment of a second-class Magistrate under Section 261, now Section 284. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 260 CrPC? Section 283 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 260 CrPC, and Sections 284 to 288 BNSS replace Sections 261 to 265 CrPC. The chapter on summary trials is now Chapter XXII of the BNSS; it was Chapter XXI of the CrPC.

Is summary trial now compulsory for petty theft? Yes, for the listed offences. Section 283(1) BNSS says a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class 'shall try in a summary way' theft under Sections 303(2), 305 or 306 BNS where the property is worth not more than ₹20,000, and the other listed offences. Section 260(1) CrPC said such a Magistrate 'may, if he thinks fit' try them summarily, and the value limit was ₹2,000.

Which other offences can be tried summarily under Section 283(2) BNSS? Section 283(2) BNSS allows the Magistrate, after giving the accused a reasonable opportunity of being heard and for reasons recorded in writing, to try summarily any offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than three years. Section 260(1)(i) CrPC had a two-year class of offences instead. No appeal lies against the decision to try a case summarily under Section 283(2).

What is the maximum sentence in a summary trial? Section 285(2) BNSS says no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed on a conviction in a summary trial, the same limit as Section 262(2) CrPC. Section 285(1) applies the summons-case procedure to summary trials except as the Chapter provides. Special laws can set their own limits: Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 allows up to one year in a summary trial of a cheque-dishonour complaint.

Does a Magistrate have to record evidence in a summary trial? Where the accused does not plead guilty, Section 287 BNSS requires the Magistrate to record the substance of the evidence and a judgment with a brief statement of reasons, as Section 264 CrPC did. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana ([1996] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 392) the Supreme Court said that even on a plea of guilt the Magistrate is not absolved of recording the substance of the evidence, and that a plea entered without the substance of the allegations being put to the accused is no plea in law.

What happens if a summary trial is part-heard and the Magistrate is transferred? Section 365(1) BNSS lets a successor Magistrate act on evidence recorded by the predecessor, but Section 365(3) says nothing in that section applies to summary trials, as Section 326(3) CrPC did. In J.V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat (2014 INSC 732, para 37) the Supreme Court held that where a cheque case triable summarily was in substance tried as a regular summons case, Section 326(3) did not apply and a de novo trial was not needed.

Which law applies to a summary trial pending on 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS continues any trial pending immediately before 1 July 2024 under the CrPC 'as if this Sanhita had not come into force'. On a reading of that text, a summary trial already pending on that date continues under Sections 260 to 265 CrPC, including the three-month sentence limit in Section 262(2), which Section 285(2) BNSS repeats.

Related

• When can a case be tried summarily? BNSS 283 vs CrPC 260
• Theft: IPC 378-382 vs BNS 303-307
• Criminal intimidation: IPC 503-506 vs BNS 351
• Cheque bounce and cheating — NI Act 138 and BNS 318
• Section 309 CrPC vs Section 346 BNSS — adjournments
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Sections 272–283 CrPC vs Sections 307–318 BNSS — Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 6, 229, 283 to 288, 316(5), 365(3), 417(d) and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 260 to 265 with the amendment footnotes, 281(5), 326(3) and 376(d).
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 303(2), 305, 306, 317(2) and (5), 331, 351 and 352.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 380, 381, 454, 456 and 506.
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 143. General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 8(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (S_1996_2_392_400_EN.md); J.V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat (2014_10_1061_1099_EN.md); In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 (2021_4_257_273_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.