IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Shyamlal Mahto, s/o Bodhan Mahto - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Writ petition filed for quashing an order summoning additional accused after conviction of co-accused - Court held that power under Section 319 must be exercised before the pronouncement of sentence - Summoning order passed post-conviction deemed illegal. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Function of the court - Once a judgment of conviction is pronounced, the trial court becomes functus officio regarding that trial. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 18.04.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh, which summoned the petitioner after the conviction of co-accused under Section 302/34 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Additional Sessions Judge acted beyond jurisdiction by issuing a summoning order post-conviction, violating the principles established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the trial court could summon additional accused after the conviction of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised before a conviction is pronounced, and any order issued thereafter is unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
I.A. No.1192 of 2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend the writ petition by substituting the words ‘Article 226” as appearing in page no.1 of the writ petition under the heading ‘In the matter of’ with the words “Article 226 and Article 227” in the cause title.
3. The prayer is allowed.
4. Registry is directed to incorporate the word “and Article 227” after the word “Article 226” in the cause title of the writ petition with red ink.
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 866 of 2019 involving the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and where under, the learned court below has summoned the petitioner invoking its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C ., after disposal of the said S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 in which the accused persons of that case have been convicted on 10.08.2023 and sentenced on 21.08.2023.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 that in paragraph no. 33 of that judgment the constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
33. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred as hereunder.
(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319CrPC 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 319CrPC 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. (Emphasis supplied)
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order dated 18.04.2024 in Sessions Trial Case No. 02 of 2020, the certified copy of which has been annexed herewith, the learned Additional Session Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has also referred the judgment of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab (supra) but has failed to take note of the answer to the question number I, in paragraph no.33 of the said judgment, which says that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction and the order of the sentence, where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 is a case where only two of the accused persons namely Shivnandan Kumar and Kanchan Devi have faced the trial. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no absconding accused persons of the case nor any trial of any co-accused is going on. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-3 which is the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2023
The trial court's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the pronouncement of conviction; any post-conviction summoning order is illegal.
Summoning of additional accused to face trial – If such a summoning order is passed, either after order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in conviction, same may not be sustainable.
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
The court affirmed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of trial and sentencing, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on evidence.
The court established that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., strong and cogent evidence is necessary to summon an additional accused, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient.
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Power of court to summon an accused based on evidence as contemplated under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. will have to be invoked and exercised before pro....
The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised before the conclusion of the trial. The Court must find prima facie evidence against the proposed accused and follow th....
The High Court's revisional order allowing summoning of additional accused under Section 319 relates back to the original rejection date, permitting a fresh trial despite the main trial's conclusion.
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Power exercised under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is quite distinct from power exercised by Trial Court/Sessions Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. – Po....
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.