Appeal concerning the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The core issue revolves around whether a trial court can summon new accused parties long after the main trial has concluded and the original accused have been convicted. The Supreme Court analyzes the scope and legislative history of Section 319, emphasizing that a High Court’s revisional order, which overturns a trial court’s rejection of a summoning application, “relates back” to the date of the original rejection. This ensures that the summoning is deemed to have occurred before the trial’s conclusion, upholding the statute’s intent to bring all perpetrators to justice, even if it necessitates a separate, de novo trial for the newly added individuals.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319, 397, 401 – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused after conclusion of trial – Offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC – Held that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by respondent no. 2 under Section 319 of the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality, thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice – Once a superior court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of revisional powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC must be treated on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court and as a result would relate back to the time the original order was passed – By virtue of relating back of the order passed by the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second application under Section 319, and therefore could be said to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial – Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial because the Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gave effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected – The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021 – Therefore, the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional order passed by the High Court – The combined effect of the revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second Section 319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 – Thus, although the summoning order in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by this Court in Maru Ram and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat
(Para 115)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319, 397, 401 – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Opportunity of being heard – 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.
(Para 110, 111, 115)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC – Stage at which power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised – Whether the Trial Court could have entertained an application filed under Section 319 of the CrPC almost twelve years after the conclusion of the main trial and in the absence of any proceedings pending before it? – A bare perusal of the sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the CrPC indicates that the power thereunder can be exercised “in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of, an offence” – “Trial” means determination of issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the court informs him of the same, the “trial” commences only on charges being framed and not from stage of cognizance being taken – Word “inquiry” is, therefore, not any inquiry relating to the investigation of the case by the investigating agency but is an inquiry after the case is brought to the notice of the court on the filing of the charge-sheet – The court can thereafter proceed to make inquiries and it is for this reason that an inquiry has been given to mean something other than the actual trial – Even the word “course” occurring in Section 319 CrPC, clearly indicates that the power can be exercised only during the period when the inquiry has been commenced and is going on or the trial which has commenced and is going on – It covers the entire wide range of the process of the pre-trial and the trial stage – The word “course” therefore, allows the court to invoke this power to proceed against any person from the initial stage of inquiry up to the stage of the conclusion of the trial – The court does not become functus officio even if cognizance is taken so far as it is looking into the material qua any other person who is not an accused.
(Para 47 to 51)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319(1), (4) – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC – De novo trial – Stage at which power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised – Conducting a fresh trial in respect of the proposed accused after the conclusion of the main trial is not permissible unless an order separating the trial of the original accused with that of the proposed accused is passed by the court before the original trial stands concluded – This stage is reached after the summoning order has been made during the pendency of the trial in respect of the original accused – Passing of a summoning order before the conclusion of trial is a requirement that flows from sub-section (1) of Section 319 – This requirement is in no way qualified by the provision of a fresh trial under sub- section (4) and thus, cannot be the basis to allow a summoning order to be passed after the conclusion of trial in the absence of a decision by the court to proceed against the proposed accused under sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the CrPC during the pendency of the trial.
(Para 60)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319(1), (4) – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Expression “could be tried together” – Held that for offences committed in the same transaction, the court should ideally arraign all the concerned persons as accused at the same time – Even if a person is not arraigned as an accused, he could be arraigned as an accused under Section 319 provided, inter alia, he “could be tried together” with the originally charge-sheeted accused – Therefore, what follows is that a person must be arraigned as an accused under Section 319 when the persons originally charge-sheeted are still accused persons and their culpability is yet to be decided – The power under Section 319 can only be exercised in a situation where the Trial Court is seized of the offence committed in the “same transaction” – When the trial is concluded, such court becomes functus officio and the power to summon persons under Section 319 for the offences alleged to have been committed in the same transaction no longer vests with the said court as the new persons sought to be summoned cannot be tried together with the original accused – Requirement placed by the expression “could be tried together with the accused” for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 is mandatory in the sense that a joint trial of the original accused and proposed accused must be possible – However, whether a joint trial, or a separate trial, is held is left to the discretion of the Trial Court – As a result, passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is mandatory – It cannot be said for a moment that passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is directory merely because sub-section (4) provides for conduct of a fresh trial in respect of the additional accused.
(Para 63, 64 and 66)
(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319(1) – Summoning as an additional accused – Essential ingredients – Held three essential requirements that must be fulfilled for invoking the powers under Section 319(1):
- First, there must be an ongoing inquiry or trial in respect of the original accused person(s); and
- Secondly, in the course of such proceedings, evidence must have come on record to show
that any person other than the original accused has committed any offence; and
- Thirdly, the person sought to be summoned could be tried together with the original accused for such offence.
(Para 39)
(G) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319(1) – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in Column 2 of the chargesheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or even a person who has been discharged – However, as regards a person who has been discharged, no proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 CrPC without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 CrPC – Such a person can be proceeded against under Section 319 only if during or after an inquiry under Section 300(5) read with Section 398, there appears to be evidence against such person which may indicate that they committed any offence for which they could be tried together with the accused – Therefore, a summoning order issued under Section 319 of the CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though the proposed accused were named in the FIR or complaint, the police did not include their names in the chargesheet – In other words, if the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial shows that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, he can be summoned to face trial even though he may not have been chargesheeted by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage.
(Para 43, 44)
(H) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319(4) – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – De novo trial – Sub-section (4) of Section 319 mandates that a fresh trial or a de novo trial is to be conducted in respect of the persons summoned under sub-section (1) so as to ensure that such persons are not deprived of the opportunity to present their case and examine the witnesses properly – The requirement of a de novo trial in sub-section (4)(a) is quite different from the notion of a split- up or separate trial as provided under Section 317 of the CrPC – The provision of a de novo trial is to safeguard the right of fair trial to be provided to the new persons summoned under Section 319(1) – However, while the provision of de novo or fresh trial under Section 319(4) is mandatory, the said sub-section is applicable only in cases where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) – Thus, a de novo trial can be commenced in respect of the proposed accused only if the power under sub-section (1) has been validly exercised by the court – In other words, sub- section (4) is subject to sub-section (1) and thus also to the expression “could be tried together with the accused” mentioned in sub-section (1).
(Para 45 and 46)
Jamin V. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 330: (DoJ 06-03-2025)
