9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sessions Court can add a new person to the array of accused in a case pending before it at a stage prior to collecting any evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of Sessions Court to Add a New Accused Prior to Evidence Collection: The primary issue in the appeal was whether a Sessions Court has the authority to add a new person to the array of accused before any evidence is collected. The Sessions Judge initially held that he could do so based on the decision in *Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar* (1993 2 SCC 16). This decision was reaffirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, referencing *Nissar Vs. State of U.P.* (1995 2 SCC 23). 2. Legal Reservations and Larger Bench Consideration: The legal position in *Kishun Singh* was questioned in *Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar* (1996 4 SCC 495), leading to the matter being considered by a larger Bench. The appellant contended that Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is the only provision allowing a Sessions Court to add a new accused, and this can only be invoked based on evidence presented during the trial. 3. Interpretation of Section 319 CrPC: Section 319 of the CrPC allows a court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offense based on evidence presented during an inquiry or trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that this power is contingent on evidence tendered during the trial, not on materials presented before the committal court, as highlighted in *Rajkishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar* (1996 4 SCC 495). 4. Jurisdiction of Sessions Court Post-Committal: The Court examined whether the Sessions Court's jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC includes summoning persons not covered by the committal order. It was noted that the committal process involves specific formalities, including dealing with the accused as per Section 209 CrPC. The Court concluded that the Sessions Court could only add new accused under Section 319 CrPC after the evidence collection stage has commenced. 5. Addressing Exceptional Circumstances: The Court acknowledged situations where the Sessions Judge might realize the necessity of adding an accused before evidence collection to prevent miscarriage of justice. It suggested that in such rare cases, the Sessions Court could report to the High Court, which could then direct the committing Magistrate to rectify the committal order. Conclusion and Order: The Supreme Court found it difficult to support the observations in *Kishun Singh* regarding the Sessions Court's powers under Section 193 CrPC to summon new accused based on pre-trial materials. Consequently, the impugned order of the Sessions Court adding the appellant as an accused was set aside. However, the decision was made without prejudice to the Sessions Court's powers under Section 319 CrPC to add any person to the array of accused based on evidence collected during the trial. The appeal was thus allowed.
|
