P. SATHASIVAM, B. S. CHAUHAN, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI, S. A. BOBDE
Hardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Crux of the Judgment on Section 319 CrPC:
Stage for Exercise: Power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised during "inquiry" (pre-trial stage post-charge-sheet, e.g., under Sections 200-202 or 398 CrPC) or "trial" (post-charge framing), but not during pre-trial preparation like Sections 207-209 CrPC; after committal, Sessions Court gains original jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Scope of "Evidence": "Evidence" under Section 319(1) primarily means evidence recorded during trial (oral statements permitted by court or documents produced/inspected per Evidence Act Section 3); investigation materials (e.g., charge-sheet, case diary) are not evidence but can corroborate trial evidence or support inquiry-stage summoning of Column 2 persons; exhaustive definition applies, excluding unproved materials. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Examination-in-Chief Sufficiency: Power exercisable on examination-in-chief alone (prima facie evidence, rebuttable); no need to await cross-examination, as summoned person gets fresh trial under Section 319(4) with full rights. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Degree of Satisfaction: Stricter than prima facie case for charge-framing (Sections 227/228 etc.); requires strong/cogent evidence (more than probability, short of conviction certainty) prima facie connecting the person to offence, exercised sparingly/discretionarily to avoid delay or fishing; "appears" means "seems" (lesser than proof). (!) (!) (!)
Persons Covered: Extends to (i) not named in FIR, (ii) named in FIR but not charge-sheeted/Column 2, or (iii) discharged; for discharged persons, comply with Section 300(5) r/w 398 CrPC inquiry first before invoking Section 319. (!) (!) (!)
Overall Purpose: Ensures real culprits face trial for justice, empowering courts (Sessions/Magistrate) only, not investigation agencies; proceedings restart afresh for added person (witnesses re-heard). (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judgment :-
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This reference before us arises out of a variety of views having been expressed by this Court and several High Courts of the country on the scope and extent of the powers of the courts under the criminal justice system to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial as contemplated under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Cr.P.C.’).
2. The initial reference was made by a two-Judge Bench vide order dated 7.11.2008 in the leading case of Hardeep Singh (Crl. Appeal No. 1750 of 2008) where noticing the conflict between the judgments in the case of Rakesh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 2521; and a two- Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 1899, a doubt was expressed about the correctness of the view in the case of Mohd. Shafi (Supra). The doubts as categorised in paragraphs 75 and 78 of the reference order led to the framing of two questions by the said Bench which are reproduced hereunder:
“(1) When the power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of addition of accused can be exercised by a Court? Whether application unde
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana [Dharam Pal (CB)]
Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar
State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman
Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar
State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra
V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I.
Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.)
"Common Cause", A Registered Society thr. its Director v. Union of India
State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, Quilon
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar
The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s. Price Waterhouse
Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma
M/s. SWIL Ltd. v. State of Delhi
M/s. Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P.
P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner
Ponds India Ltd. (merged with H.L. Limited) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow
Feroze N. Dotivala v. P.M. Wadhwani
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri
Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.
Omkar Namdeo Jadhao v. Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana
Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan
Podda Narayana v. State of A.P.
Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration
State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar
Ramnarayan Mor v. The State of Maharashtra
Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir v. State of Bihar
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh v. State of Jharkhand
Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan
Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal
Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation
State of Karnataka v. L. Munishwamy
All India Bank Officers Confederation v. Union of India
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena
State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni
Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
Suresh v. State of Maharashtra
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
Palanisamy Gounder v. State, represented by Inspector of Police
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab
Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384 - Relied upon [Para 101]
Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
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.