2009 (5) TMI 980 - SC - Indian Laws

Power of a court u/s 319 - application of prosecution u/s 319 of the Code - summon issued for trial of offences u/s 148/302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - Indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. The observation of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi 1982 (12) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction u/s 319 of the Code is the question. The answer to these questions should be rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge for consideration of the matter afresh. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The power of a court to summon additional accused during a trial.
3. The standard of evidence required to invoke Section 319.
4. Judicial discretion and the extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319.
5. The necessity of a de novo trial under Section 319(4).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appeals question the interpretation and application of Section 319 of the Code. The provision allows a court to proceed against any person not initially accused if evidence suggests their involvement in the offense. The Supreme Court examined various precedents to interpret this section, emphasizing its extraordinary nature and the necessity for its sparing use.

2. The power of a court to summon additional accused during a trial:
The court discussed the discretionary power conferred by Section 319, which allows the summoning of additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial. This power is deemed extraordinary and should only be exercised if compelling reasons exist. The judgment referenced multiple cases, including Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi, which highlighted that this power should be used very sparingly.

3. The standard of evidence required to invoke Section 319:
The court examined the standard of evidence necessary to summon additional accused under Section 319. It was noted that the evidence must be strong enough to reasonably lead to a conviction. The court referenced Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Rakesh v. State of Haryana, which clarified that the term "evidence" includes material collected by the investigating officer and evidence presented in court. The court emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; a higher standard is required.

4. Judicial discretion and the extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319:
The court reiterated that the power under Section 319 is exceptional and must be exercised with judicial discretion. The decision in Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq was discussed, which stressed that the court must be satisfied with the evidence before summoning additional accused. The court must apply stringent tests and ensure that the evidence is convincing for the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction.

5. The necessity of a de novo trial under Section 319(4):
The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of a de novo trial when additional accused are summoned under Section 319. This ensures that the newly added accused have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present their defense from the beginning. The court referenced Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, which emphasized the necessity of fresh examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses for the newly added accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the learned Sessions Judge for fresh consideration. The court reiterated that the power under Section 319 should be exercised sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist, with a higher standard of evidence required to summon additional accused. The appeals were allowed with these directions.