Skip to main content

difference between summons and warrant

 


Difference between summons and warrant.

By Swatee Shukla 

Most people think that summons and warrant are nearly the same things, but it is not, there is a vital difference between both. According to English, vocabulary Summon is a verb that means the order (someone) to be present. In layman’s language summons simply means an official demand to appear in a court. Summons can be issued by a court or sometimes by a police officer or commission. It may be issued to the accused, witness, or someone who has some sort of document related to the case. Provisions for the summon are provided in sections (61-69) of CrPC.  section 61 talks about forms of summons. Summons is always issued in two copies that is why it is called a summons and not summon. Summons may be served in three ways, personal service, extended service, and substituted service.  Section 62 how summons to be served.  Section 62 provides for personal service of summons which means if possible, summons should be given to the person himself, who has been summoned. In the landmark case of Karsanlal Danatram, 1868, it was held that the mere showing of a summon to a witness is not sufficient to service. Either the summons should be left with the witness or should be exhibited to him or a copy of it delivered or tendered to him. the tendered copy will be considered as sufficient service.  A duplicate copy will be provided to the person summoned and another copy, carrying the sign of summoned person will be kept as records. Now, suppose if the police come to your house to serve to summon to you, and you are not at your home that time, so now what, should police return without serving the summon, absolutely not, according to section 64 of CrPC, if the summoned person can not be found, then the summons can be handled to any adult male member of his family residing with him. And this type of service is called the substituted service of summoning. In the case of Nav Maharashtra Chakan oil mill ltd. V shivshati poultry form, it was held that sections 62,64 and 65 do not contemplate the issuance of summons to the accused by post, though permissible to witness.  In the case of service of summons on the corporate body, it can be served to the secretary, local manager, or another principal officer of the corporation or summons can be sent via post to the chief of the company. 

As the supreme court stated in the case of N.B. Mukherjee v. state of Bengal 1976- the summons is a milder form of process. It is either (a) for appearance or (b) for producing a document or thing. The summons for appearance may be issued to an accused person or witness. 


Provision for the warrant has been provided in sections (70-81) of CrPC. Summon is just an official demand to appear in a court whereas a warrant is a document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an action. This document can be issued to present the accused or witness or some document, or for search (search warrant).
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more