https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165694 A Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try excise offences summarily under Section 260 CrPC where the offence carried imprisonment up to three years, because summary trial is confined to offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years. The resulting proceedings were void under Section 461(m) CrPC. On appeal against sentence, Section 386(c)(i) CrPC empowered the appellate court to set aside the conviction and sentence and direct retrial by a competent court. The summary trial was therefore without jurisdiction, and the matter had to be retried in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:01:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165694 A Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try excise offences summarily under Section 260 CrPC where the offence carried imprisonment up to three years, because summary trial is confined to offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years. The resulting proceedings were void under Section 461(m) CrPC. On appeal against sentence, Section 386(c)(i) CrPC empowered the appellate court to set aside the conviction and sentence and direct retrial by a competent court. The summary trial was therefore without jurisdiction, and the matter had to be retried in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165694