Difference between inquiry and trial in Criminal Procedure Code

The word “trial” is not defined formally in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the word “inquiry” is defined in Section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C. as under:

““inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;”

So, every inquiry made by the court under the Cr.P.C., which is not a trial, is known as “inquiry”.

What, then, is the trial?

In the case of Moly v. State of Kerala, (2004) 4 SCC 584, the Supreme Court observed that though the word “trial” is not defined in Cr.P.C., it is clearly distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial.

In Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 179, the Supreme Court held that the trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry.

In the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that trial is distinct from an inquiry and must necessarily succeed it. The purpose of the trial is to fasten the responsibility upon a person on the basis of facts presented and evidence led in this behalf.

In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 775, the Supreme Court held that:

• In cases of trials before the Sessions Court the trials shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the cases concerned.
• In cases of trials of warrant cases by Magistrates if the cases are instituted upon police reports the trials shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed under Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while in trials of warrant cases by Magistrates when cases are instituted otherwise than on police report such trials shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed against the accused concerned under Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• In cases of trials of summons cases by Magistrates the trials would be considered to have commenced when the accused who appear or are brought before the Magistrate are asked under Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make.”

In the aforesaid case of Hardeep Singh, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court summarised the legal position by holding that as “trial” means determination of issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the court informs him of the same, the “trial” commences only on charges being framed. It was held that, thus, it was not the correct view to say that in a criminal case, trial commences on cognizance being taken.

In this case of Hardeep Singh, the Supreme Court further held that Section 2(g) of Cr.P.C. clearly envisages inquiry before the actual commencement of the trial, and is an act conducted under Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate or the court. The word “inquiry” is, therefore, not any inquiry relating to the investigation of the case by the investigating agency but is an inquiry after the case is brought to the notice of the court on the filing of the charge-sheet. The court can thereafter proceed to make inquiries and it is for this reason that an inquiry has been given to mean something other than the actual trial.

In the case of Tineswar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1978 Cri LJ 1080 (Pat) (FB), a Full Bench of the Patna high court had held that a trial within the meaning of the Code is a judicial proceeding which ends in either conviction or acquittal.

In the case of State of Kerala v. Achutha Paniker, 1975 KLT 703, Kerala high court had held that trial of an accused commences when he is called upon to plead to a charge and the proceeding up to the point of framing a charge is in the nature of an inquiry. Inquiry stops when the trial begins.

So, basically, all those proceedings before a court under the Cr.P.C. which take place before the framing of a charge and which do not result in conviction or acquittal, would come within the meaning of inquiry. It may also be pointed out an inquiry need not necessarily be with regard to charge sheet submitted by police in an offence; an inquiry may be held under Cr.P.C. for other purposes too. For example, for declaring a person absconding as a proclaimed offender, the court may conduct “inquiry” as laid down in Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C.

During trial, examination and determination of a charge or accusation against an accused may take place before the court and it may result into either the conviction or acquittal of the accused. During trial, evidence may be recorded by the court and its judgment delivered on appreciation of such evidence.