Jamin & Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Whether the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the order passed by the High Court directing it to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC would relate back and replace its earlier order dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the s.319 application: Held: The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021 – Therefore, the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional order passed by the High Court – The combined effect of the revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second s.319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 – Thus, although the summoning order in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by this Court in Maru Ram case and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat case. [Para 115(f)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Whether the Trial Court could have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of the CrPC after the conclusion of the trial, more particularly when no stay on trial had been granted by the High Court: Held: The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC – The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be rendered nugatory solely because the trial was not stayed by the High Court and stood concluded before the High Court could pass the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction – Therefore, unlike cases where an application u/s.319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will not have a bearing on the adjudication of an application u/s.319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed by way of a revisional order. [Paras 100, 101]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Whether the High Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused before deciding the revision petition filed against the rejection of application u/s.319 of the CrPC by the Trial Court – If yes, whether the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was passed without issuing notice to the appellants and providing them an opportunity of hearing:

Held: s.319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial – A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial – This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per s.319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with the other accused – However, after the rejection of an application u/s.319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused – Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused – This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of s.401 of the CrPC – In the instant case, a perusal of the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Revision Petition No. 400/2010 clearly indicates that the appellants were respondent nos.2 and 4, respectively, before the High Court – Hence, there is no merit in the submission of the appellants that the order rejecting the 2nd application u/s.319 of the CrPC was set aside by the High Court without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. [Paras 114, 115(g)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Object, Purpose and Scope:

Held: s.319 has been included in the statute book with the object of ensuring effective administration of justice – The legislature enacted s.319 to eliminate any situation wherein the courts would feel helpless in proceeding against any person who appears to be guilty of committing an offence, more particularly, in cases where the investigating agency or prosecution files chargesheet only against a few persons in relation to an offence and leaves out a few others either intentionally or unintentionally – The said section empowers the courts to proceed with persons who are not the accused before it, upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the provision – The intention behind giving a wide interpretation to s.319 is to ensure that the perpetrator of a crime does not get away unpunished – The legislature incorporated the provision with the purpose of empowering the courts to find out the real culprits without getting hindered by procedural impediments so that the guilty does not go unpunished. [Paras 34, 37]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sub-section (1) to s.319 – Essential requirements:

Held: A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of s.319 brings out three essential requirements that must be fulfilled for invoking the powers thereunder: a. First, there must be an ongoing inquiry or trial in respect of the original accused person(s); and b. Secondly, in the course of such proceedings, evidence must have come on record to show that any person other than the original accused has committed any offence; and c. Thirdly, the person sought to be summoned could be tried together with the original accused for such offence. [Para 39]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning order u/s.319 of CrPC – When a person was not chargesheeted by the investigating agency:

Held: A summoning order issued u/s.319 of the CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though the proposed accused were named in the FIR or complaint, the police did not include their names in the chargesheet – In other words, if the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial shows that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, he can be summoned to face trial even though he may not have been chargesheeted by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage. [Para 44]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sub-section (4) of s.319: Held: Sub-section (4) of s.319 mandates that a fresh trial or a de novo trial is to be conducted in respect of the persons summoned under sub-section (1) so as to ensure that such persons are not deprived of the opportunity to present their case and examine the witnesses properly – The requirement of a de novo trial in sub-section (4)(a) is quite different from the notion of a split up or separate trial as provided u/s.317 of the CrPC – The provision of a de novo trial is to safeguard the right of fair trial to be provided to the new persons summoned u/s.319(1). [Para 45] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Stage at which power u/s.319 of the CrPC can be exercised – Discussed. [Paras 47-60]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Meaning of the expression “could be tried together with the accused” – Discussed. [Paras 61-68]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Mechanism for exercise of powers u/s.319 in cases where the trial is over but the revisional order relates back to the date of the rejection of an application under the said section by the Trial Court: Held: In cases where the trial is over but the revisional order relates back to the date of the rejection of an application under the said section by the Trial Court – It is axiomatic that in such a case there is no occasion for a joint trial to be conducted with the original accused persons – Therefore, when the order of the High Court passed in revision after the conclusion of trial relates back to the order of the Trial Court passed before the conclusion of trial, it must be taken to mean that the new accused would be proceeded against in a separate trial – Such a situation shall be governed by the guidelines provided in Sukhpal Singh Khaira case – There is no requirement for a decision by the Trial Court on the question of separation of trial in cases like the present one since the trial has already concluded in respect of the original accused and the only manner in which the order of the High Court can be given effect to is by proceeding in a separate trial qua the new accused persons. [Para 96]