Supreme Court: The court must hear proposed accused in criminal revision preferred against order rejecting application U/S 319 of CRPC against him

g. Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per Section 319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with the other accused. However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.)

Jamin and Another  Vs  State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 

Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6320 of 2024)

Decided on March 6, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 506

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revision against an order u/s 319 CrPC rejecting application for summoning of additional accused is maintainable.

 In our considered opinion, the complainant ought to have challenged the order before the High Court in revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure and not by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Maybe, in order to circumvent the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 or Section 401, the complainant moved the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event a criminal revision had been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge passed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court before passing the order would have given notice and opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. {Para 22}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2013 

Decided On: 01.07.2013

Mohit and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.

Author: M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0633/2013 : AIR 2013 SC 2248.

Print Page

Supreme Court Reiterates Procedural Safeguards U/S 319 of CRPC To Prevent Misuse Of Power To Summon Additional Accused

 It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional Accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional Accused Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure ought not to be invoked.

{Para 17}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2023.

Decided On: 21.02.2023

Juhru and Ors.  Vs. Karim and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.

Author: Surya Kant, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0154/2023.

Print Page

Constitution Bench Judgment of Supreme Court: Guidelines for exercise of power U/S 319 of CRPC

 III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure?"

(i) If the competent court finds evidence or if application Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.

(ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional Accused and pass orders thereon.

(iii) If the decision of the court is to exercise the power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure and summon the Accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case.

(iv) If the summoning order of additional Accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned Accused is to be tried along with the other Accused or separately.

(v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned Accused.

(vi) If the decision is that the summoned Accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the Accused who were being proceeded with.

(vii) If the proceeding paused as in (i) above is in a case where the Accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned Accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case.

(viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional Accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial.

(ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing.

(x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly.

(xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional Accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held.

(xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned Accused as indicated earlier;

(a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned Accused.

(b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned Accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019, 

Decided On: 05.12.2022

 Sukhpal Singh Khaira  Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author:A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1577/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court has power to summon an additional accused if trial against absconding accused is pending?

 II. Whether the trial court has the power Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional Accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding Accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?

The trial court has the power to summon additional Accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding Accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the Accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019, 

Decided On: 05.12.2022

 Sukhpal Singh Khaira  Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author:A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1577/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court can summon an additional accused after conclusion of trial?

I. Whether the trial court has the power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional Accused when the trial with respect to other co-Accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

The power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the Accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019, 

Decided On: 05.12.2022

 Sukhpal Singh Khaira  Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author:A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1577/2022

Print Page

Whether session court can summon accused if previously complainant had given no-objection for deletion of his name?

After the charge-sheet was filed in the committal

Court before the concerned Magistrate, the record reveals that

notice was given to the de facto complainant, who is P.W.1,

regarding deletion of names of the revision petitioners named

in the FIR. It appears that the de facto complainant has filed

a Memo in the committal Court stating that he has no

objection for deletion of the names of the said accused.

 It is also relevant to note here that the Constitution

Bench of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (1 supra)

while considering what is the meaning of the word “evidence”

used in Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C held that the Court can

exercise the power under Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C even on the

basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the

witness concerned. It is further held that the Court need not

wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be

summoned to be tested by cross-examination. So, it is evident

that even on the basis of the examination-in-chief alone, the

Court can exercise the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

46. Ultimately, at the cost of repetition, it is reiterated

that the Apex Court in the above Constitution Bench

judgment also held as follows:

“A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in

the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who

has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319

CrPC provided from the evidence it appears that such person

can be tried along with the accused already facing trial.”

47. Therefore, the revision petitioners, though named in

the FIR but not charge-sheeted can also be added as accused

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C as it appears from the evidence

on record that they have also committed the said offences.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

 Criminal Revision Case No.533 of 2015

 Boya Kajje Pedda Ambaraju Vs  State of Andhra Pradesh, 

Dated 21-5-2020

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while summoning additional accused U/S 319 of CRPC

 Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. The Court, thus, during the trial on the basis of any evidence is fully empowered to proceed against any person, whose name was not even included in the F.I.R. or the Charge Sheet. The parameters of exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C has been explained by this Court time and again. It is sufficient to refer to Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra), where this Court had considered the following issue amongst others:-

“6.4. (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?”

7. The Constitution Bench judgment in the above judgment has held that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Court can proceed against any person, who is not an accused in a case before it. The Constitution Bench, however, has held that the person against whom the Court decides to proceed, “has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence”.

8. Answering the Issue No.(iv) as noticed above, in Paragraph Nos. 105 and 106 of the judgment, following was laid down by the Constitution Bench:-

“105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”

9. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The crucial test, which has been laid down as noted above is “the test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing

of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”

 The High Court does not even record any satisfaction that the evidence on record as revealed by the statement of victim and her mother even makes out a prima facie case of offence against the appellants. The mere fact that Court has power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person who is not named in the F.I.R. or in the Charge Sheet does not mean that whenever in a statement recorded before the Court, name of any person is taken, the Court has to mechanically issue process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court has to consider substance of the evidence, which has come before it and as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) has to apply the test, i.e., “more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.” 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1349 of 2018

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6392 /2018)

LABHUJI AMRATJI THAKOR Vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

Dated:November 13, 2018.

Print Page

Constitutional bench judgment of Supreme Court on summoning of additional accused as per S 319 of CRPC

110. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:

Question Nos. 1 & III

Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?

AND

Q. III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure becomes available for summoning an additional accused.

Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Code of Criminal Procedure; and under Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet.

In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.

Question No. II

Q. II Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?

A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Code of Criminal Procedure the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.

Question No. IV

Q. IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?

A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial-therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.

Question No. V

Q. V Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged?

A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750, 1751 of 2008.

Decided On: 10.01.2014

 Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab 

Print Page

When court can summon additional accused as per S 319 of CRPC?

It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. may not
contain all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the
accused. It is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts already
known. There are varities of crimes and by their very nature, details of
some crimes can be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation.
This is more true in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or
cases not founded on eye witness accounts. The fact that Police chose
not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the trial
court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on
account of evidence recorded during trial. This is the factual scenario in
the case at hand also.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014]
Hardei V State of U.P.
Citation;AIR 2016 SC 1615
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by Magistrate while summoning of additional accused as per S 319 of crpc in case of misappropriation of streedhan

What should be the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code came to be discussed in case Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana, 2002 (1) RCR 280, wherein in para 2 it was stated as under ;

"12. The above provisions leave no manner of doubt that the pre-requisite for invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code is that evidence should disclose the commission of offence by the person who had not been arraigned as an accused for which he should be tried together with other accused. The key to the satisfaction of such a requirement is contained in the words "it appears from the evidence that any person not being an accused has committed an offence". The manifest significance of the word "appears" employed in this section by the Legislature is to cover both the stages envisaged under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code in relation to the person who had not been earlier facing trial as an accused but such person must appear to have committed the offence so that he be tried together with other accused. Though these provisions had vested a discretionary power in the Court but it being a judicial discretion has to be exercised in such a manner which would advance the cause of criminal justice. The Court is duty bound to see that these provisions are not used as a handle by a witness to bring another person in the area of trial without any acceptable basis brought forth in his statement. The Court will definitely come to the rescue of the complainant where on the basis of evidence brought on record, it is clearly made out that the other person named by him had not been sent up to face trial along with other accused unfairly by the prosecution though the other person named on record was also responsible for commission of crime. That being so, it is the paramount duty of the Court that the left over person should be made to face the trial along with other accused so that cause of justice could not be allowed to suffer at the hands of the investigating agency. Therefore, the Court has to be extra cautious while exercising the discretion vested in it and apply the test that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to warrant conviction of the person to be summoned to face trial along with other co-accused."

9. In para 15 of that very judgment, the factors which needed to be looked into for invoking the provision of Section 319 were highlighted and the same are as follows :

(i) the doubt about the involvement of the other accused has no place;

(ii) discretionary power so vested in Cr.P.C. under these provisions should be exercised to advance the cause of criminal justice;

(iii) there is compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other accused;

(iv) the power vested in this section is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly."

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr. Sant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2002

Equivalent citations: II (2003) DMC 232

Bench: R Kathuria

Print Page

What are requirements for summoning of additional accused as per S 319 of crpc?

"Section 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed."

The Section authorizes the Court making any inquiry into or conducting the trial of an offence to "proceed" against any person (other than the accused facing trial) subject to two conditions (i) that from the "evidence" it appears to the Court that such a person "has committed any offence", and (2) that such a person "could be tried together with the accused."

Supreme Court of India

R.Dineshkumar@Deena vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police ... on 16 March, 2015

Bench: J. Chelameswar, C. Nagappan

Citation;(2015) 7 SCC 497

Read full judgment here;click here

Print Page