Sections 283 to 288 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — previously Sections 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — provide for the trial of petty offences in a summary way. The chapter is the speed-of-disposal end of the criminal process: it shortens the record, caps the sentence at three months’ imprisonment, and dispenses with the formal charge. Its constitutional rationale is that minor offences must not be allowed to clog the docket of regular trials, and its administrative rationale is to free the Magistrate’s time for the heavier work of warrant trials and committal proceedings.

The BNSS introduces one substantial reform — a new sub-section to Section 283 making summary trial mandatory or permissible for offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years, subject to the Magistrate’s discretion in writing. The substantive procedural shell — particulars of the offence under summons procedure, abridged record, three-month sentencing cap — is unchanged.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The chapter has six sections.

  1. Section 283 BNSS (previously Section 260 CrPC) — power to try summarily; new sub-section for offences up to three years.
  2. Section 284 BNSS (previously Section 261 CrPC) — summary trial by Magistrate of the second class.
  3. Section 285 BNSS (previously Section 262 CrPC) — procedure: summons-case procedure adopted; three-month sentencing cap.
  4. Section 286 BNSS (previously Section 263 CrPC) — record in summary trials.
  5. Section 287 BNSS (previously Section 264 CrPC) — judgment in cases tried summarily.
  6. Section 288 BNSS (previously Section 265 CrPC) — language of record and judgment.

Summary trial is a sub-set of summons-trial procedure. Section 285 BNSS imports the summons-case trial procedure wholesale, subject to the exceptions in this chapter; the Magistrate steps from one regime into the other only by exception. The architecture of the criminal process is therefore three-tiered — sessions trial for the gravest offences, warrant trial for serious-but-not-grave, summons trial for the moderate, and summary trial for the petty — mapped end-to-end in the broader Code of Criminal Procedure notes.

Object and constitutional position

The object of the summary chapter is to save time by shortening the record in petty cases, and thereby save the work of the Magistrate in maintaining elaborate records in minor matters (Marta v. Piadade, AIR 1969 Goa 94). The sentencing cap and abridged record are not pro-prosecution shortcuts; they are pro-system efficiencies. Article 14 challenges to summary procedure have been turned away: the classification — petty offences differently treated from grave ones — is rational and serves a legitimate purpose (Bindeswari v. Birju, AIR 1959 Pat 46).

The price of speed is two-sided. The accused gets a faster trial, a lighter sentencing ceiling, and a shorter file; the prosecution loses the elaborate evidentiary record and the deferred sentencing hearing. The trade-off is built into Section 285(2), which caps the maximum imprisonment at three months regardless of the underlying punishment-quantum the offence carries.

Section 283 BNSS — power to try summarily

Section 283 BNSS (previously Section 260 CrPC) confers the summary-trial power on three magistrates: the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Metropolitan Magistrate, and any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the High Court. A Magistrate of the second class may also try a narrower sub-set summarily under Section 284 BNSS, when so empowered.

The list of offences triable summarily is as before:

  1. Offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.
  2. Theft under Sections 303(2)(a) BNS, 305 BNS, and 306 BNS (previously Sections 379, 380, 381 IPC), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed two thousand rupees.
  3. Receiving or retaining stolen property under Section 317(2) BNS (previously Section 411 IPC), where the value does not exceed two thousand rupees.
  4. Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property under Section 317(5) BNS (previously Section 414 IPC), where the value does not exceed two thousand rupees.
  5. Offences under Sections 331(2) and 331(3) BNS (previously Sections 454 and 456 IPC) — lurking house-trespass.
  6. Insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace under Section 352 BNS (previously Section 504 IPC); criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) BNS (previously Section 506 IPC), where punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
  7. Abetment of any of the foregoing.
  8. Attempt to commit any of the foregoing, where attempt itself is an offence.
  9. Any offence constituted by an act under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871.

Two structural points govern the list. First, even where the offence falls within the list, the Magistrate is not bound to try it summarily. The discretion is wide; he should avoid summary procedure where the facts are complicated (Dinanath, (1913) 35 All 17) or where the consequences are serious, such as dismissal of a public servant (Sachidanand, AIR 1956 Assam 240). Second, sub-section (2) of Section 283 BNSS — carrying forward Section 260(2) CrPC — allows the Magistrate, even mid-trial, to recall any witnesses already examined and re-hear the case under the regular procedure where it appears that summary trial is undesirable. The conversion is one-way and final once invoked.

The 2024 BNSS innovation is the new sub-section to Section 283 covering offences punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment. The new provision permits summary trial for these offences, with a proviso that no appeal shall lie against the Magistrate’s decision to proceed summarily under that sub-section. This expands the universe of summary-triable offences, but the no-appeal proviso narrows the appellate review — a calibrated trade-off the Standing Committee considered necessary to make the expansion politically sustainable.

Where the Magistrate trying summarily is not specially empowered under Sections 283 or 284 BNSS, the proceedings are void by virtue of Section 506(m) BNSS (previously Section 461(m) CrPC). The defect goes to jurisdiction; the trial is nullified, not merely irregular (Cf. Shanu v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 92).

Section 284 BNSS — second-class Magistrate

Section 284 BNSS (previously Section 261 CrPC) lets the High Court confer on a Magistrate of the second class — sitting singly — the power to try summarily any offence punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with or without fine; and any abetment or attempt to commit such offence.

The second-class Magistrate’s summary jurisdiction is therefore narrower than the first-class’s — capped at six-month-punishment offences rather than two-year-punishment offences — and does not extend to the property-value-capped categories of Section 283. The Joint Committee’s 1973 reform abolished the ‘Bench of Magistrates’ that the 1898 Code permitted; only individual Magistrates can now exercise summary powers, and only when specially empowered by the High Court.

Section 285 BNSS — procedure and sentencing cap

Section 285 BNSS (previously Section 262 CrPC) is the procedural backbone. Sub-section (1) imports the summons-case procedure of Sections 274 to 282 BNSS into summary trials — subject to the exceptions in this chapter. Sub-section (2) caps the sentence at three months’ imprisonment for any conviction under the chapter. The cap operates regardless of the underlying offence’s punishment-quantum; even where the offence carries up to two years (or, post-BNSS, three years under the new sub-section), the Magistrate trying summarily cannot impose more than three months.

The summons-procedure import means:

  1. Particulars of the offence are stated to the accused under Section 274 BNSS; no formal charge is framed (Porobo v. Premavati, AIR 1969 Goa 67).
  2. The plea is recorded as nearly as possible in the words of the accused under Section 275 BNSS (Abdul Rehman v. State, AIR 1970 J&K 135).
  3. If the accused pleads guilty, conviction may follow on the plea, subject to the same safeguards as in summons trials.
  4. If he does not plead guilty, prosecution evidence is taken in his presence under Section 277 BNSS, with cross-examination available.
  5. The Section 351 BNSS examination of the accused (previously Section 313 CrPC) extends to summary trials — the words ‘in every inquiry or trial’ in Section 351(1) BNSS make the application universal.
  6. Acquittal or conviction is recorded under Section 278 BNSS; if discharge appears appropriate, only the Section 281 BNSS stoppage-route applies, and only in police-instituted cases.

Two propositions distinguish the summary trial from the summons trial. There is no obligation to frame even a written record of the ‘particulars of the offence’ in the elaborate way a summons-case file would carry; the Section 286 BNSS register is the only required document where the accused pleads guilty. And the sentencing cap of three months is absolute — aggregation under Section 9 BNS (previously Section 71 IPC) cannot push the aggregate sentence above three months in a summary trial, regardless of the number of offences (Nanalal v. State, AIR 1969 Guj 62).

The three-month cap does not, however, apply to summary trials prescribed by special enactments — for example, the Defence of India Rules — that themselves prescribe a higher punishment for summary disposition. Special law in this respect overrides the general cap (Bapanaiah, AIR 1970 AP 47).

TEST YOURSELF

Six sections. Three-month cap. Two record formats.

Topic-tagged MCQs from previous-year papers and original mocks — calibrated to actual exam difficulty.

Take the procedural-law mock →

Section 286 BNSS — the summary register

Section 286 BNSS (previously Section 263 CrPC) directs the Magistrate trying summarily to enter, in such form as the State Government may direct, ten particulars in a summary register:

  1. The serial number of the case.
  2. The date of the commission of the offence.
  3. The date of the report or complaint.
  4. The name of the complainant (if any).
  5. The name, parentage, and residence of the accused.
  6. The offence complained of and the offence (if any) proved, and where Clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of Section 283(1) is in play, the value of the property in respect of which the offence has been committed.
  7. The plea of the accused and his examination (if any).
  8. The finding.
  9. The sentence or other final order.
  10. The date on which the proceedings terminated.

The 1973 Code introduced a structural shift here. The 1898 Code had differentiated record-keeping by appealability of the case; the new Code differentiates by whether the accused pleaded guilty or not. Where he pleads guilty, the Section 286 register entries are sufficient. Where he pleads not guilty, the additional Section 287 BNSS requirement — record the substance of the evidence and a brief judgment — kicks in.

The Section 286 register is mandatory; an entry that omits the plea, or the examination of the accused, or his alibi, is non-compliant (Porobo v. Premavati, AIR 1969 Goa 67; Ram v. Prithipal, AIR 1950 All 224). Even where the accused pleads guilty, the plea must be recorded in his own words under Section 275 read with Section 286(g); failure here will set aside the conviction (Cf. Brij Kishore v. State, AIR 1965 All 482).

Section 287 BNSS — judgment in not-guilty cases

Section 287 BNSS (previously Section 264 CrPC) governs the case where the accused does not plead guilty. The Magistrate must (i) record the substance of the evidence, and (ii) record a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding.

What is required is the substantial part of the deposition of each witness — not the effects, not a precis (Krishna, AIR 1960 Bom 107) — so as to enable the appellate court to perform its functions (State v. Ishar, AIR 1956 Punj 160). The portion of the prosecution evidence material to the defence cannot be omitted. A judgment that recites the Magistrate’s impression of the evidence from memory, or that gives no indication of what the witnesses stated, is fatal to the conviction (Trinimong v. State of Nagaland, 1978 CrLJ (NOC) 174 Gau; Kanchan v. Sailendra, AIR 1958 Cal 595).

The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 distilled the obligation: even where the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate is not absolved of recording the substance of the evidence; only the judgment-with-reasons element drops out. The judgment must be written by the same Magistrate who recorded the substance of the evidence; Section 326 BNSS (the de novo trial provision when a Magistrate is transferred) does not apply to summary trials, so the successor Magistrate must start the case afresh (Cf. Shanu v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 92).

Where the order of conviction or acquittal does not state reasons, it is liable to be set aside (State of Mysore v. Sheity, AIR 1963 Mys 77; Kanchan v. Sailendra, AIR 1958 Cal 595). Brevity is permitted; absence of reasoning is not.

Section 288 BNSS — language of record and judgment

Section 288 BNSS (previously Section 265 CrPC) requires every record and judgment under the chapter to be written in the language of the court. Sub-section (2) authorises the High Court to permit a summarily empowered Magistrate to have the record or judgment prepared by an officer appointed in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, with the prepared record or judgment then signed by the trying Magistrate. The provision is the procedural concession to the workload of the magistracy — the trying Magistrate need not handwrite every entry, but must take responsibility through his signature.

Distinctions from summons trial proper

Five points draw the line between a summary trial and a summons trial under Sections 274 to 282 BNSS.

  1. Magistrate qualification. Summons trial — any judicial Magistrate. Summary trial — only CJM, Metropolitan Magistrate, specially empowered first-class Magistrate, or specially empowered second-class Magistrate.
  2. Sentencing cap. Summons trial — up to two years (Magistrate’s power under Section 23 BNSS). Summary trial — three months under Section 285(2).
  3. Record. Summons trial — full deposition (or memorandum of substance under Section 309 BNSS). Summary trial — particulars in register (Section 286) plus, where the accused pleads not guilty, substance of evidence and brief judgment (Section 287).
  4. Appealability. Summons trial — appeal generally available. Summary trial — no appeal where only fine not exceeding two hundred rupees is imposed (Section 416(d) BNSS, previously Section 376(d) CrPC); the new BNSS sub-section to Section 283 also bars appeal against the decision to proceed summarily for offences up to three years.
  5. De novo on transfer. Summons trial — successor Magistrate may continue under Section 326 BNSS. Summary trial — successor Magistrate must start the case de novo, since Section 326 does not apply.

Appeal and revision in summary trials

The appeal/revision architecture is uneven and section-specific.

No appeal where only a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees is imposed under Section 283 BNSS (Section 416(d) BNSS, previously Section 376(d) CrPC). But where the fine is combined with imprisonment, or exceeds two hundred rupees, an appeal lies subject to the proviso to Section 416 BNSS (Marta v. Piadade, AIR 1969 Goa 94).

Appeal lies to the Court of Session from a sentence of conviction by a second-class Magistrate exercising summary power under Section 284 BNSS (Section 414(3)(a) BNSS, previously Section 374(3)(a) CrPC).

Revision lies where the judgment or final order in a summary trial is passed by a Magistrate not empowered under Sections 283 or 284 BNSS — the Section 461(m) BNSS jurisdictional defect supplies the revisional ground (Cf. Shanu v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 92). The High Court may also exercise its Section 528 BNSS inherent power to correct an order that has caused a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Special-law summary trials

Several special enactments adopt the Chapter XXI summary procedure for offences they create. Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes summary trial for offences under that Act (Ruli v. Asst. Collector, (1986) CrLJ 1631 (HP)); Section 12AA of the essential-supplies legislation (P.P. v. Anjaneyulu) does the same. Where the special law prescribes summary trial, the Magistrate trying the case must still be specially empowered under Section 283(1) BNSS — the special law does not relieve the jurisdictional requirement.

The most prosecutorial use of summary procedure in modern India has been Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The 2002 amendment empowered the Magistrate to try Section 138 cases summarily and to impose imprisonment up to one year (notwithstanding the three-month cap), and the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions has guided the procedural conduct of these summary cheque-bounce trials. The interplay with the complaint procedure chapter is important — Section 138 cases are summons-case complaints that elect into summary procedure.

Common reversible errors in summary trials

Four patterns recur and merit attention.

Trial by an unempowered Magistrate. A first-class Magistrate not specially empowered, or a second-class Magistrate not empowered under Section 284, has no jurisdiction; the trial is void under Section 506(m) BNSS. This is the cleanest revisable defect in a summary case.

Substance of evidence not recorded. Section 287 BNSS is mandatory where the accused pleads not guilty. The Magistrate’s impression-from-memory judgment is fatal; the substance of each witness’s deposition must be on the record (Trinimong; Kanchan v. Sailendra).

Sentence above three-month cap. Section 285(2) is absolute. Even where multiple offences are tried at the same summary trial, the aggregate sentence cannot exceed three months. The appellate court will cut down any excess (Nanalal v. State, AIR 1969 Guj 62).

Plea of guilty recorded summarily. The plea must be recorded in the words of the accused under Section 275 BNSS, even in a summary trial. A blanket ‘the accused pleaded guilty’ entry — without the words of the accused — is reversible (Cf. Brij Kishore v. State, AIR 1965 All 482).

BNSS comparison — what changed

The substantive procedural architecture is unchanged. The BNSS additions are calibrated:

  1. Section 283 BNSS — new sub-section enabling summary trial of offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years; no appeal against the Magistrate’s decision to proceed summarily under that sub-section. BNS sections replace IPC sections in the list of summarily triable offences.
  2. Sections 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 — no substantive change.

The case law on Sections 260 to 265 CrPC carries forward without amendment to Sections 283 to 288 BNSS — Marta v. Piadade, Bindeswari v. Birju, Porobo v. Premavati, Pawan Kumar, Krishna, Trinimong, Kanchan v. Sailendra, Nanalal v. State, Bapanaiah — all good law.

Exam-angle takeaways

Five points exam-setters use without fail.

  1. Three-month sentencing cap. Absolute under Section 285(2) BNSS. No exception for multiple offences via Section 9 BNS aggregation.
  2. Magistrate must be specially empowered. Trial by an unempowered Magistrate is void under Section 506(m) BNSS.
  3. BNSS innovation — summary trial for offences up to three years. The new Section 283 sub-section, with the no-appeal proviso. The most likely BNSS-versus-CrPC banker for this chapter.
  4. Section 286 register where plea of guilty; Section 287 substance plus brief judgment where not. The two-track record-keeping is the structural answer to ‘how is a summary trial recorded?’
  5. Section 326 does not apply. Successor Magistrate must start a transferred summary case de novo — the only trial track in the Code where this is the rule.

The summary-trial chapter is the procedural fast lane of the Indian Magistrate’s court — petty offences, abridged record, three-month cap, no formal charge. A long-form mains answer should walk through the six-section sequence, highlight the BNSS three-year-offence expansion and its no-appeal proviso, and finish with the Section 326 de novo rule. A prelims MCQ will pivot on the three-month cap, the BNSS expansion of summary triability, the Section 286 / 287 record-keeping bifurcation, or the unempowered-Magistrate void-trial point. The companion procedural piece — the appellate review of summary verdicts — is treated in the appeals in criminal cases chapter; the next-of-kin plea-bargaining regime is the other speed-of-disposal innovation in the Code, often invoked alongside summary procedure to clear backlog. The structural connection to judgment form and contents matters because the brief-judgment requirement of Section 287 is a curtailed version of the regular Section 392 BNSS judgment template, and the broader appellate canvas is mapped in the reference and revision chapter.

Frequently asked questions

Which Magistrates can try a case summarily under Section 283 BNSS?

Three magistrates have the power: any Chief Judicial Magistrate, any Metropolitan Magistrate, and any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court. A Magistrate of the second class may also try a narrower sub-set summarily under Section 284 BNSS, when so empowered by the High Court — but only for offences punishable with fine alone or with imprisonment up to six months. A trial by a Magistrate not specially empowered is void under Section 506(m) BNSS (previously Section 461(m) CrPC), as held in Cf. Shanu v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 92.

What is the maximum sentence in a summary trial?

Three months’ imprisonment under Section 285(2) BNSS (previously Section 262(2) CrPC). The cap is absolute and operates regardless of the underlying offence’s punishment-quantum — even if the offence carries up to two years (or, post-BNSS, up to three years under the new Section 283 sub-section), the Magistrate trying summarily cannot impose more than three months. Aggregation under Section 9 BNS (previously Section 71 IPC) cannot push the aggregate sentence above the cap (Nanalal v. State, AIR 1969 Guj 62). Fine, however, has no statutory limit beyond the Magistrate’s own sentencing power. Special enactments that prescribe summary trial with their own higher punishment override the cap (Bapanaiah, AIR 1970 AP 47).

What is the BNSS innovation in Section 283 on three-year-imprisonment offences?

Section 283 BNSS adds a new sub-section enabling the Magistrate to try summarily offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or less, with a proviso that no appeal shall lie against the Magistrate’s decision to proceed summarily under that sub-section. The expansion responds to the Standing Committee’s view that the two-year cut-off was too restrictive for the speed-of-disposal logic of the chapter. The no-appeal proviso narrows appellate review of the procedural-choice decision — though not of the conviction or sentence themselves — and is the most likely BNSS-versus-CrPC contrast for prelims setters in this area.

How is the record kept in a summary trial?

The 1973 Code — carried forward by the BNSS — bifurcates record-keeping by the accused’s plea. Where the accused pleads guilty, only the ten particulars under Section 286 BNSS (previously Section 263 CrPC) need to be entered in the summary register: serial number, date of offence, date of complaint, parties’ details, offence and value (where relevant), plea, finding, sentence, date of termination. Where the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate must additionally (i) record the substance of the evidence, and (ii) record a judgment with a brief statement of reasons under Section 287 BNSS (previously Section 264 CrPC). The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 read the obligation strictly: even on a plea of guilty, the substance of evidence must be recorded if there is any.

Is Section 326 BNSS de novo trial available when a summary case Magistrate is transferred?

No. Section 326(3) BNSS (previously Section 326(3) CrPC) expressly excludes summary trials from the rule that a successor judicial officer can continue from where the predecessor left off. The structural reason is that the summary trial’s record — particularly the Section 286 register and the Section 287 substance-of-evidence note — is too compressed to allow a successor to take meaningful charge. If a Magistrate trying summarily is transferred after recording some evidence, the successor Magistrate must start the case de novo (Cf. Shanu v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 92). This is the only trial track in the Code where successor-de-novo is the rule rather than the exception.