9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding trying a person summoned after the conclusion of the trial where the summoning order was passed. Summary: The case involved a situation where a person (respondent No.1) was summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be tried together with an accused, Chandra Shekhar Singh, for a murder case. However, the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh concluded before respondent No.1 could be brought before the Sessions Court, leading to the question of whether respondent No.1 could still be tried in the absence of a pending trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, which allow for proceedings against additional persons to be commenced afresh with witnesses reheard. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of a de novo trial for newly added persons and the need for a fresh examination of witnesses. Regarding the interpretation of the phrase "could be tried together with the accused" in Section 319, the Court determined that it was directory rather than absolute. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring justice and reasoned that the conclusion of the trial against one accused should not nullify the order to summon another person, emphasizing the need for a reasonable and common-sense approach. The Court rejected the argument that the summoning order became ineffective due to the conclusion of the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh, emphasizing that the provision of a fresh trial is mandatory while the provision for trying newly added accused together is directory. The Court also clarified the magistrate's powers under the Code and how the provisions of Sections 190, 209, and 193, along with Section 319, work together to determine the jurisdiction and process for trying additional persons in a criminal case. In conclusion, the Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the summoning order as without jurisdiction due to the conclusion of the trial against one accused. The case was remanded to the High Court for further consideration of other contentions raised by respondent No.1. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was directed to expedite the decision within three months.
|
