Sessions Court Can Summon Persons Not Named in Chargesheet U/S 193 CrPC, Holds Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of powers of a Sessions Court, the Supreme Court has held that upon committal of a case, the Sessions Court can summon an individual as an accused under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if that person was not named in the police chargesheet. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that this power is distinct from the power under Section 319 CrPC and can be exercised at the pre-trial stage based on materials available in the police report.

The Court held that the committal of a "case," not just the "accused," empowers the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the entire offence and proceed against any person whose involvement is prima facie evident from the record.

Case Background

The judgment arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar, challenging an order by the Allahabad High Court. The case pertains to the rape and murder of a woman in 2018.

Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) named one Ajay as a suspect. However, the investigation revealed the petitioner's involvement through witness statements, Call Detail Records (CDR), and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Despite this, a subsequent investigation by the Crime Branch exonerated the petitioner, and a chargesheet was filed only against Ajay.

After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the victim's husband filed an application under Section 193 CrPC to summon the petitioner. The Sessions Court, after examining the case diary, found sufficient prima facie evidence and summoned the petitioner to face trial. This order was upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Sessions Court had erred in summoning him under Section 193 CrPC. The key contentions were: 1. The power to summon an additional accused could only be exercised under Section 319 CrPC after the trial commences and evidence is recorded. 2. The Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence before committing the case. Therefore, the Sessions Court could not take a "second cognizance" under Section 193. 3. The Constitution Bench decision in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana (2014) establishes that cognizance can be taken only once, either by the Magistrate or the Sessions Court.

Supreme Court's Detailed Analysis

The Supreme Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the procedural law concerning cognizance and committal proceedings, particularly for offences exclusively triable by a Sessions Court.

On Cognizance and Committal

The bench clarified that while cognizance is taken of the "offence" and not the "offender," the Magistrate does take cognizance before committing a case under Section 209 CrPC. This act, however, is for the limited purpose of committal and does not exhaust the power of cognizance.

The Court highlighted a crucial legislative change from the old CrPC (1898) to the new CrPC (1973). The law now mandates the committal of the "case" rather than the "accused." This implies that the Sessions Court gains jurisdiction over the entire incident.

In our opinion once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. - Excerpt from the Judgment, citing Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar

Reinterpreting Dharam Pal

The Court carefully interpreted the Constitution Bench's decision in Dharam Pal . It clarified that the principle of "no second cognizance" does not create an absolute bar on the Sessions Court. When a case is committed, the Sessions Court assumes original jurisdiction. The power under Section 193 CrPC is precisely to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence for the purpose of summoning any person who appears to be involved, based on the committal records.

The judgment stated:

"Once the case is committed to the Court of Session and the Court of Session finds from the materials on record that a particular individual, though not charge sheeted, is also prima facie involved in the alleged crime, then the Court of Session has the power to take cognizance of the offence for the purpose of summoning that person not named as offender to face the trial."

The Court reasoned that Section 193 CrPC lifts the embargo on the Sessions Court, allowing it to act as a court of original jurisdiction post-committal. Holding otherwise would create a procedural vacuum where a person blatantly exonerated by the police could not be brought to trial until the Section 319 stage, thereby hampering justice.

Final Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court. It concluded that the Sessions Court was well within its powers under Section 193 CrPC to summon the petitioner based on the material in the police report, without waiting for evidence to be recorded at trial.

The key conclusions summarized by the bench are: 1. Commitment under the CrPC is of the "case," not the "accused." 2. Once a case is committed, the Sessions Court’s cognizance of the offence allows it to summon additional persons as an incidental part of the process. 3. It is the court’s duty to identify the real offenders, and summoning additional accused is part of that duty.

The Court directed the trial to be completed within six months and ordered the circulation of the judgment to all High Courts to ensure uniformity in applying this crucial point of law.