Rajasthan High Court
K. Bhatnagar, Jas Raj Chopra & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Dalip Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
Full Bench Criminal Misc. Petition No. 191 of 1986
Decided On : May 16, 1988
Key Points: - The term "evidence" in Section 319(1) means statements of witnesses recorded before the court during an inquiry or trial and does not include statements recorded by the police or documents filed with the charge sheet (!) (!) . - The court can take cognizance of an offense under Section 319(1) upon prima facie satisfaction from the record and documents, even without prior statement recording in court, to avoid delay and prejudice (!) (!) . - The Section 319(1) power applies during the inquiry stage before charge framing and is not restricted to the trial stage, allowing addition of persons not originally accused (!) (!) .
2. In Sheoram Singhs case (supra) the point under reference was as to whether the word evidence used in S. 319 of the Code signifies and means the evidence recorded in the Court, or it can also include the evidence recorded by the Police both, oral and documentary. The learned Judges discussing the decisions of this Court and other High Courts and Honble the Supreme Court regarding the power of the Court to take cognizance against persons not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet or the committal order, and construing the meaning of the evidence and the implications of the term "inquiry into and trial or" held as under :
"The term evidence as used in S. 319 Cr. P. C. means the statements of witnesses recorded before the Court during an inquiry or trial and dees not include the statements recorded by the police under S. 161 Cr. P. C. or the statements recorded at the instance of the police by the magistrate under S. 164 Cr. P. C. and the statements recorded by the magistrate under S. 202 (2), Cr. P. C. and the papers submitted by the police in the form of any other documents, simplicitor".
3. In view of that finding, the five revision petitions under reference before their Lordships, in which the cognizance against the various petitioners in the revision petitions was taken without recording of the statement of any witness by the Court were allowed and the impugned orders passed by the trial Court for taking cognizance under Section 319 of the Code were quashed.
4. The enactment of Sec. 319 of the Code is an expression of the desire of the Legislature to vest power in the Courts to place in dock the persons against whom there appears to be evidence but who, either due to inadvertence of the Investigation agency or for any other reason, had not been arrayed as offenders and put up for trial before the Court. Just as it is a cardinal principal or criminal law that innocent persons should not be punished, it is also in the interest of society that the real offender may not be spared. The vesting of the power in the Court for taking cognizance against persons not already there in the array of offenders in on account of the anxiety of the Legislature that the offenders may be put in dock at whatever stage it may appear to the Court that in order to proceed against such persons it is necessary to add them in the array of the offenders already facing inquiry or trial.
5. Sec. 319 of the Code is not an altogether new provision in the New Code of Criminal Procedure. I
(5) Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC 339)
(13) Ramnarayan Mor vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1964 SC 949)
(14) Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1967 SC 1167)
(15) Hareram Satpathy vs. Tikaram Agarwala (AIR 1978 SC 1568)
(2) Ajayab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1978 RLW 9)
(18) State of Kerala vs. Achutha Panicker (1975 KLT 703)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.