Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon additional accused during the course of a trial based on sufficient evidence, even if they were initially discharged by the police, and the examination-in-chief of a witness, without cross-examination, can be considered as evidence for this purpose.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 3-2-1988 by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1987 (State v. Akbar and others) pending in his Court under S. 307 I. P. C. whereby he has allowed an application moved by the State purporting to be under S. 319 of the Cr. P. C. and directed that Margoobul Hassan be summoned as an accused in this case.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel has placed on the record a certified copy of the statement of Riyazul Hasan, on the basis of which the application was moved on behalf of the State by the A. P. P. to summon Margoobui Hasan under S. 319 Cr. P. C. A certified copy of this application has also been placed on the record.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel has argued that Margoobul Hasan was an accused in this case in the beginning and the police submitted a final report against him, which was accepted and therefore, he could not now be summoned under S. 319 Cr. P. C. He has further said that the summoning order is based upon an incomplete statement of a witness, inasmuch as cross-examination has not been made, and hence, also the applicant could not be summoned under S. 319 Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) S. 319 Cr. P. C. has been subject of discussion and consideration in a number of cases. In the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 339 Tulzapurkar, J. observed that "a plain reading of S. 319 (1) which occurs in Chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all the Courts including a Sessions Court and as such a Sessions Court will have the power to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused persons".

( 5 ) THIS was followed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi, AIR 1983 SC 67, in which a Division Bench observed after quoting Sec. 319 with its sub-secs. (1), (2), (3), (4) (a) (b ). "this provision gives ample powers to any Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with the other accused. This provision was also the subject-matter of decision by this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 339. In these circumstances therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence, which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as an accused against whom proceedings have been quashed, have also committed the offence, the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. "

( 6 ) A perusal of this case will show that proceedings had been quashed against a person but during evidence he was also named by the witnesses and the Court, therefore, held that under S. 319 Cr. P. C. he can be summoned to stand trial along with the other accused, even in spite of the fact that proceedings had been quashed against him.

( 7 ) IN the case of Sri Mahant Amarnath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 288 another Division Bench of the Supreme Court was of the view that "where in respect of murder of one person and injuries to two persons, the police did not challan the appellant and three others in spite of the fact that in all the statements recorded under S. 161 Cr. P. C. the eye-witnesses had stated about the participation of these four persons in the commission of the crime, but on application under S. 319 Cr. P. C. by the informer, the Sessions Judge after recording evidence of one injured eye-witness who gave sufficient details about the participation of the aforesaid four persons, impleaded these persons as accused in the case, it was held that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Sessions Judge. The fact that the details given by the eye-witness at the trial had not figured in his statement under S. 161 C