Legal Provisions of Section 248 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Acquittal or conviction:
Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, the Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused. He must either acquit the accused or convict him unless he decides to proceed under Section 325 (Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe) or under Section 360 (release of accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Acquittal of accused only on the ground of non-production of evidence by prosecution is not warranted. The Magistrate shall hear the accused on the question of sentence upon him according to law.
If the Magistrate convicts the accused on his having been found guilty, he may at his discretion, considering the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case decide to order release of the accused on probation of good conduct under Section 360 or under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of passing the sentence.
Image Source : luna.edu
Where the Magistrate acquits the accused, he has necessarily to find him not guilty to the charge on the basis of evidence that is recorded. Mere absence of the complainant does not empower the Magistrate to order acquittal of the accused, as this section empowers the Magistrate to still proceed with the case at his discretion.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Similarly death of the complainant after the charges against the accused have been framed will not result into acquittal of the accused but the Magistrate must proceed with the case.
There is no provision of law which empowers a Magistrate to dismiss the complaint or pass an order of discharge in a warrant case after framing a charge. Therefore, once a charge is framed, ordinarily, the Magistrate has to proceed with the trial which may ultimately result in acquittal or conviction of the accused.
Sub-section (3) provides special procedure when previous conviction is charged and the accused does not admit such previous conviction. The object of this provision to prohibit the proof of previous conviction being given until and unless the accused is convicted is to prevent the accused from being prejudiced at the trial.
As regards opportunity of hearing to accused on question of sentence, the Allahabad High Court in Bhirug v. State of U.P., held that where only counsel of the accused was asked to make an oral submission on the question of sentence and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, the procedure adopted by the trial Court was wholly against the spirit and object of provision contained in Section 248 (2) of the Code as it will cause prejudice to the accused.