SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Cal) 77

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ASIM KUMAR RAY, J.

Mir Md. Asfia
Versus
Mir Md. Ismail and Ors
CRR No. 1809 of 2004
Decided On: 11/02/2013

The power under Section 319, CrPC to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence is an extraordinary power and should be used sparingly. It may be exercised only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other persons against whom action was not taken earlier.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 319 - SECTION 301(2) - SECTION 173(2)(II) - POWER TO PROCEED AGAINST OTHER PERSONS APPEARING TO BE GUILTY OF OFFENCE - COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 301(2) - EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR ADDITION OF ACCUSED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 319, 301(2) AND 173(2)(II) - COURT'S DISCRETION IN EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 319

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a complaint against several accused, including opposite parties 4 to 11. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against three accused, while the rest were discharged. During his examination-in-chief, the petitioner named opposite parties 4 to 11 as accused who had committed mischief. The petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of CrPC to proceed against opposite parties 4 to 11, which was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power conferred under Section 319, CrPC is an extraordinary power and should be used sparingly. It may be exercised only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other persons against whom action was not taken earlier. The court found that the evidence on record did not reveal that the persons to be added as accused had involvement and complicity in the offence alleged.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 319 of CrPC to proceed against opposite parties 4 to 11? 2. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's revision petition?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 319, CrPC empowers the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence only if it is found that they could be tried together with the accused who are already arrayed. 2. The power under Section 319 can be exercised by the court being satisfied that there is evidence against the persons who are not on record as accused have committed the offence complained of for which those persons could be tried together with the accused who is on record and facing trial. 3. The evidence on record did not reveal that the persons to be added as accused had involvement and complicity in the offence alleged. 4. The court found no compelling reasons to exercise its power under Section 319, CrPC against opposite parties 4 to 11.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 319 of CrPC.

ORDER

1. This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is directed against an order dated 29-3-2004 passed in Criminal Motion No. 109 of 2003 by learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan which arise out of an order dated 1-7-2003 passed in GR Case No. 852 of 1997 corresponding to Ausgram Police Station Case No. 52 of 1997 dated 23-6-2007 under Sections 143/147/148/447/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan.

2. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite parties before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. It was sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Ausgram P.S. for investigation after treating the same as First Information Report under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. As a result Ausgram P.S. Case No. 52 of 1997 dated 23-6-2007 cropped up. On investigation charge-sheet was submitted against three opposite parties, namely Mir Md. Ismail, Mir Abdul Salim alias Mir Md. Salim and Mir Abdul Halim alias Mir Md. Halim. The rest opposite parties were not sent up as accused in the charge- sheet. They were discharged.

3. Charge under Sections 147/148/149/447/379 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the aforesaid three opposite parties. Two witnesses were examined in full. Petitioner was cited as prosecution witness No.3 and in course of his evidence /examination- in-chief he named the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 11 as accused persons who has committed mischief. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan to proceed against those opposite party Nos. 4 to 11. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 1-7-2003 rejected the application. Being dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner preferred a revisional application being Criminal Motion No. 109 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Burdwan by an order dated 29-3-2004 dismissed the said revisional application, so this second revisional application before this Court.

4. Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the mandatory provisions as prescribed under Section 173(2)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with by the investigating officer. The petitioner was not intimated about the progress of the investigation and fact of discharge of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 11. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate the same and has failed to construe a true and proper meaning of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order passed by the learned Court below is illegal. It may be interfered with and set aside. Mr. Mitra, has cited a decision reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1090: (AIR 2001 SC 2521) (Rakesh and another v. State of Haryana) to substantiate his submission.

5. Mr. Amarta Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 12/State of West Bengal has contended that the provisions laid down in Section 301(2) of Cr. P.C. has not been taken care of before filing the petition under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. by the petitioner. The learned Court below has passed a speaking order rejecting the said application. The citation placed by the learned counsel of the petitioner is based on different circumstances and not applicable to this matter.

6. Perused the impugned orders and the evidence in chief of the petitioner Mir Md. Asfia. Gone through the provisions laid down in Sections 301(2) and 319 of Cr. P.C. It is an admitted fact that petitioner being the de facto complainant in the midst of his examination as prosecution witness took out an application under Section 319 of Cr. P. C.

7. Section 319 of Cr. P. C. deals with power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. It reads as follows:-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appear







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top