IMPORTANT POINTS
As for scope and ambit of section 319 CrPC the following questions need to be answered authoritatively by a larger Bench :
I. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co­accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?
II. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC 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?
III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

Prior History : From the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR 4070 of 2017 dated 17-11-2017 [2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1582]

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These Criminal Appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dated 17.11.2017, passed in Criminal Revision No. 4070 of 2017 and Criminal Revision No. 4113 of 2017, wherein the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions and upheld the order of the Trial Court summoning the accused­appellants herein, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter ‘CrPC’ for brevity].

3. The factual narration of this case is that on 05.03.2015, a First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad against eleven accused for the offence committed under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Section 25­A of the Arms Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Initially, under the 1st charge sheet dated 06.09.2015, ten accused were summoned and put to trial in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015. Even though a second charge sheet was filed by the police, the same did not name the accused­appellants herein.

4. Subsequently, on 31.07.2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC for recalling PW­4 and PW­5, which came to be allowed. On such recall the aforesaid witnesses named the accused­appellants herein. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of CrPC in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015 for summoning additional five accused (including the present appellants herein) by placing reliance on statements of PW­4, PW­5 (recalled witnesses) and PW­13.

5. On 31.10.2017, the Sessions Court first pronounced the judgment in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015, convicting the nine other accused put on trial. On the same day, by a separate order the Sessions Court, while allowing the application of the prosecution, summoned accused­appellants herein under Section 319 of CrPC. Aggrieved by the summoning by the Sessions Court, the accusedappellants, filed separate Criminal Revision Petitions, in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, being Criminal Revision Nos. 4070 and 4113 of 2017. The High Court by the common impugned judgment, dismissed the Criminal Revision, and upheld the summoning order passed by the Sessions Court.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, accused appellants have approached this Court through these Special Leave Petitions.

7. Heard learned counsels appearing for both parties. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused­appellant in SLP (Crl) No. 9063 of 2017 contended by relying upon the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 to state that, the power under Section 319 (1) CrPC can be exercised at any time after the filing of the charge­sheet and before the pronouncement of the judgment. In the present case, the aforesaid summoning order passed after the order of conviction is in clear breach of the principles laid down in the Hardeep Singh Case (supra). The counsel further contended that when the Hardeep Singh Case (supra), has clearly prescribed the stage at which an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, can be entertained, the aforesaid violation is not merely procedural but is rather a substantial one. Lastly, the counsel contended that the moment the trial is concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment, then the stage for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, ends and the court becomes functus officio.

8. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused­appellant (in SLP (Crl) No.9150/2017), while generally supporting Mr. Patwalia has submitted that the order summoning the appellants herein was passed simultaneous with the order of conviction of other accused. The counsel submitted that Section 319 (4) Cr.P.C, has to be read along with Section 319 (1)­ which provides t