The criminal justice system is rooted in the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The presence of the accused and witnesses during a criminal trial is pivotal to ensuring a fair trial and upholding the rule of law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and its updated counterpart, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provide a Metropolitan Magistrate with various coercive powers to secure the attendance of witnesses and the accused.

This article explores the different coercive steps available to a Metropolitan Magistrate, including the issuance of summons and warrants, attachment and sale of property, and the proclamation of persons absconding. Additionally, it discusses the procedure to be followed when the accused remains absent despite these coercive measures, including proceeding ex parte and the implications of Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and its updated counterpart, Section 209 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023

Introduction
The presence of the accused and witnesses during criminal proceedings is essential to the fair administration of justice. However, there are instances where individuals attempt to evade the judicial process. To counter such situations, the CrPC and BNSS empower the Metropolitan Magistrate with various coercive measures to ensure attendance. These powers are essential to prevent the miscarriage of justice and uphold the sanctity of legal proceedings. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the coercive steps a Metropolitan Magistrate can take to ensure the presence of the accused and witnesses, as well as the procedure to follow if these measures fail.
 Issuance of Summons (Sections 61-69 CrPC; Sections 63-71 BNSS):
The initial step in securing the presence of the accused or a witness is the issuance of a summons. A summons is a legal order directing an individual to appear before the court at a specified date and time. The CrPC under Sections 61-69, and the BNSS under Sections 63-71, outline the procedure for the issuance of summons. A summons must be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer of the court, and bear the court's seal. Case Law Reference: In Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC OnLine Pat 69, the Patna High Court emphasized that the service of summons is a mandatory procedural requirement to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.

Issuance of Warrant (Sections 70-89 CrPC; Sections 72-83 BNSS):
If the individual fails to respond to the summons, the Metropolitan Magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest under Sections 70-89 of the CrPC or Sections 72-83 of the BNSS. The warrant may be either bailable or non-bailable, depending on the gravity of the offense. A warrant directs law enforcement to arrest the individual and produce them before the court. Case Law Reference: In State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 454, the Supreme Court held that the issuance of a warrant is a necessary step when an accused fails to respond to the summons, reinforcing the legal obligation to appear before the court.

• Proclamation for Person Absconding (Section 82 CrPC; Section 84 BNSS): When an accused absconds or conceals themselves to avoid execution of the warrant, the Metropolitan Magistrate may issue a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC or Section 84 of the BNSS. The proclamation is a public declaration, requiring the accused to appear before the court within a specified period, usually not less than thirty days from the date of issuance. Case Law Reference: In State of M.P. v. Pardeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the Supreme Court highlighted that the issuance of a proclamation is a stringent measure, reflecting the seriousness of an accused's failure to respond to a warrant.

Attachment of Property (Section 83 CrPC; Section 85 BNSS)
If the accused fails to comply with the proclamation, the Metropolitan Magistrate can order the attachment of the accused's property under Section 83 of the CrPC or Section 85 of the BNSS. This step serves as a coercive measure to compel the accused to appear before the court.

• Case Law Reference: In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441, the Supreme Court ruled that attachment of property is a severe step, reflecting the court's determination to enforce its authority when an accused deliberately absconds.
   
• Attachment and Sale of Property (Section 83 CrPC; Section 85 BNSS)
  • If the attached property is not claimed or the accused does not surrender within six months, the property may be sold, and the proceeds may be used to satisfy any fines or penalties imposed by the court. This measure further intensifies the pressure on the accused to appear.
     
  Case Law Reference: In Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1931 All 261, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that the sale of attached property is the last resort and must be executed with caution to ensure that the accused is given ample opportunity to present themselves before the court.
   
• Proceeding Ex Parte (Section 299 CrPC; Section 335 BNSS)
  • If the accused does not appear despite the issuance of summons, warrants, and the proclamation of an absconding person, the Metropolitan Magistrate may proceed with the trial ex parte under Section 299 of the CrPC or Section 335 of the BNSS. This means the trial will continue without the accused, and the evidence will be recorded in their absence.
     
  Case Law Reference: In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that ex parte proceedings are justified when an accused wilfully avoids trial, thereby obstructing the judicial process.
   
• Issuance of Bond for Witnesses (Section 88 CrPC; Section 91 BNSS)
  • To ensure the attendance of witnesses, the Metropolitan Magistrate can require them to execute a bond with or without sureties under Section 88 of the CrPC or Section 91 of the BNSS. This bond acts as a legal commitment by the witness to appear before the court as required.
     
• Detention of Witnesses (Section 87 CrPC; Section 90 BNSS)
  • In cases where a witness refuses to comply with the bond or does not appear despite the issuance of summons or warrants, the court may order their detention under Section 87 of the CrPC or Section 90 of the BNSS.
  Case Law Reference: In Mohammad Bilal v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 8 SCC 718, the Supreme Court recognized the court's authority to detain witnesses who refuse to comply with the legal process, thereby ensuring the smooth conduct of the trial.
   
• Procedure if the Accused Does Not Appear Despite Coercive Steps: Continuing with the Trial Ex Parte (Section 299 CrPC; Section 335 BNSS)
  • If the accused fails to appear despite all coercive measures, the court may proceed with the trial ex parte under Section 299 of the CrPC or Section 335 of the BNSS. The trial will continue based on the evidence available, and the court may render a judgment in the absence of the accused.
  Case Law Reference: In Ravi Kiran v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 9 SCC 263, the Supreme Court underscored that ex parte trials are permissible under the law when an accused deliberately avoids the judicial process.
   
• Issuance of Proclamation and Attachment (Sections 82 & 83 CrPC; Sections 84-85 BNSS)
  • As part of the ex parte proceedings, the court may also issue a proclamation and order the attachment of the accused's property under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC or Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS. This serves as a final attempt to compel the accused to present themselves before the court.
     
  Case Law Reference: In S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, the Supreme Court affirmed that the issuance of a proclamation and attachment of property is a legitimate and necessary step in cases where an accused evades trial.

Proceeding under Section 174A IPC (Section 209 BNS)
When an accused fails to appear despite being proclaimed as an absconder, they may be charged under Section 174A of the IPC or Section 209 of the BNS for non-compliance with the proclamation. This is a criminal offense, and the accused can face additional penalties if convicted.

Case Law Reference: In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with a proclamation is a serious offense, justifying additional charges under Section 174A of the IPC.

Judgment and Sentencing (Section 353 CrPC; Section 392 BNSS)
Finally, the court may pronounce judgment under Section 353 of the CrPC or Section 392 of the BNSS based on the evidence presented during the ex parte proceedings. If the accused is found guilty, sentencing will proceed in their absence.

Case Law Reference:
In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reiterated that the judiciary must ensure that justice is served, even in the absence of the accused, when all reasonable measures to secure their presence have been exhausted.

Conclusion
The coercive powers granted to a Metropolitan Magistrate under the CrPC and BNSS are vital to ensuring the presence of the accused and witnesses during a criminal trial. These measures, ranging from the issuance of summons to ex parte proceedings, reflect the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and delivering justice. However, the exercise of these powers must be balanced with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the rights of the accused and witnesses are respected throughout the process. Ultimately, these coercive steps underscore the seriousness with which the judiciary approaches the conduct of criminal trials, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

References:

• Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC OnLine Pat 69.
• State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 454.
• State of M.P. v. Pardeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.
• Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441.
• Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1931 All 261.
• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776.
• Mohammad Bilal v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 8 SCC 718.
• Ravi Kiran v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 9 SCC 263.
• S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
• Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1.