Supreme Court clarifies the stage for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in criminal trials (5 December 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 5 December 2022
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna
Bench Composition: The judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench, with Justice A.S. Bopanna authoring the opinion.

Can a trial court summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after convicting the original accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the timing and scope of the court’s power to summon additional individuals who appear to be involved in a crime. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC, which allows a court to summon individuals not initially named as accused, and has significant implications for criminal trials across India.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on March 5, 2015, at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad, against 11 individuals for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Arms Act, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. A charge sheet was filed on September 6, 2015, against 10 accused, leading to Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015. The appellant, Sukhpal Singh Khaira, was not named as an accused in the initial charge sheet.

During the trial, after the initial recording of evidence, the prosecution successfully applied to recall two witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) under Section 311 of the CrPC. In their further examination, these witnesses implicated Sukhpal Singh Khaira. Subsequently, on September 21, 2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused, including Sukhpal Singh Khaira.

On October 31, 2017, the Sessions Judge convicted 9 of the 10 original accused in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015, and also allowed the application under Section 319 of the CrPC, summoning Sukhpal Singh Khaira to face trial. This order was challenged by the appellant, who argued that the summoning order was not sustainable because it was passed after the judgment of conviction against the original accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the appellant, upholding the Trial Court’s order to summon him as an additional accused. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, noted conflicting views in previous judgments, specifically referring to Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh (2002) 5 SCC 738 and Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 regarding the stage at which the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised. The bench felt the need for an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. Consequently, the case was referred to a larger bench.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which states:

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. —(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then — (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”

This section empowers the court to summon additional individuals as accused if their involvement in the offense is evident from the evidence presented during the inquiry or trial. The key issue is the timing of this power, specifically whether it can be exercised after the trial against the original accused has concluded.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The order to summon the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC was passed after the trial had concluded, and the judgment and sentence had been pronounced.
• This is a violation of Section 319 of the CrPC and the principles established in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, which states that the power must be exercised before the pronouncement of judgment.
• The power under Section 319 of the CrPC can only be exercised during the pendency of the trial, which is before the pronouncement of judgment.
• Once the trial concludes and judgment is pronounced, the court becomes functus officio, meaning it no longer has the power to act in the case.
• The violation is substantive, not merely procedural, as the power is limited by the stage during which it can be exercised.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments (Shri S. Nagamuthu):

• The court does not have the power under Section 319 of the CrPC before taking cognizance under Section 190 of the CrPC or after the pronouncement of judgment.
• The trial court cannot summon additional accused when the trial of other co-accused has ended and a judgment of conviction has been rendered on the same day.
• In a Sessions Trial, the proceedings terminate when an accused is acquitted or when the sentence is passed after conviction.
• Evidence collected during the investigation (FIR, Section 161, Section 164 statements) cannot be treated as evidence for the purpose of Section 319 of the CrPC.
• In a split-up case, evidence from a separate trial can be used to array a person as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, but only based on evidence from that separate trial.
• When a person is summoned as an additional accused, the court has the discretion to decide whether to conduct a joint trial or not.
• As per Section 319(4) of the CrPC, a fresh trial should be conducted against the newly added accused, and if there is a joint trial, the evidence already recorded is not valid against the added accused.

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The intent of Section 319 of the CrPC is to ensure that no culprit goes unpunished.
• Courts should have the power to summon any person who appears to have committed an offense.
• A narrow interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC would defeat the purpose of the provision.
• The phrase “could be tried together with other accused” identifies who can be summoned and tried as an additional accused.
• The conclusion of the main trial does not render an order under Section 319 of the CrPC inoperative if a revision or appeal is pending before higher courts.
• The court can exercise the power under Section 319 of the CrPC when the trial of absconding accused is ongoing, having been bifurcated from the main trial.
• The court does not become functus officio when an application under Section 319 of the CrPC is decided on the same day as the trial concludes, as the order on sentencing is an integral part of the judgment.

State of U.P.’s Arguments:

• The trial does not conclude with the pronouncement of conviction, as sentencing is also a part of the judgment.
• The court becomes functus officio only after the sentence is imposed.
• The power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised until the sentence is pronounced.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be invoked at any stage, even after the sentence is pronounced.
• The objective of the provision is to ensure that no accused goes scot-free.

Intervenor-Prosecutors Association’s Arguments:

• Complemented the arguments on behalf of the states, supporting a broad interpretation of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC.

[TABLE] of Submissions by Parties:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The Union of India’s argument that the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked even after the sentence is pronounced is an innovative interpretation, pushing the boundaries of the provision to ensure that no accused escapes justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?
2. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?
3. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 of the CrPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh (2002) 5 SCC 738 – Supreme Court of India: The court considered this case, which held that the phrase “could be tried together” in Section 319(1) of the CrPC is directory, not mandatory.
• Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 – Supreme Court of India: The court relied heavily on this case, which clarified the scope and timing of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC, stating that it must be exercised before the pronouncement of judgment.
• Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Others (1995) 2 SCC 513 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to define when a judgment is considered complete, noting that the trial ends only after the sentence is awarded.
• Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referenced to support the view that a judgment is complete only after the sentence is determined.
• Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another (2007) 7 SCC 378 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the object of Section 319 of the CrPC, which is to ensure justice by bringing all guilty parties to book.
• Manjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others (2021) SCC Online SC 632 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to for the analysis of the object and power under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – The core provision under consideration, empowering courts to summon additional accused.
• Section 190 of the CrPC – Regarding cognizance of offenses by Magistrates.
• Section 311 of the CrPC – Regarding the power of the court to recall and re-examine witnesses.
• Section 232 of the CrPC – Regarding acquittal of the accused.
• Section 235 of the CrPC – Regarding judgment of acquittal or conviction.
• Section 353 of the CrPC – Regarding the pronouncement of judgment.
• Section 354 of the CrPC – Regarding the language and contents of the judgment.
• Section 273 of the CrPC – Regarding evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused.
• Section 223 of the CrPC – Regarding the power of the court to hold a joint trial.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court analyzed and clarified the interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC in light of its previous judgments.

• Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh (2002) 5 SCC 738: The court upheld the view that the phrase “could be tried together” in Section 319(1) of the CrPC is directory.
• Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92: The court reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised at any time before the pronouncement of judgment, but clarified that judgment means the imposition of sentence.
• Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Others (1995) 2 SCC 513 and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1: These cases were used to support the conclusion that a judgment is complete only after the sentence is awarded.

The Court also relied on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India to emphasize the objective of Section 319 of the CrPC, which is to ensure that no guilty person escapes justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to balance the objective of ensuring that all those guilty of an offense are brought to book with the procedural requirements of a fair trial. The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is a tool to prevent injustice and ensure that no culprit escapes due to procedural technicalities.

The court also considered the legislative intent behind Section 319 of the CrPC, which was to address situations where additional individuals are found to be involved in an offense during the course of a trial. The court clarified that the power to summon additional accused must be exercised before the trial is complete, which, in the case of conviction, means before the sentence is imposed.

The court’s analysis of the relevant provisions of the CrPC, particularly Sections 232, 235, 353, and 354, led to the conclusion that a trial concludes only after the sentence is imposed. This interpretation was crucial in determining the timing of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Sentiment Analysis Table of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations (80%), with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case (20%).

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC could be exercised even after the sentence was pronounced. However, this interpretation was rejected, as it would go against the legislative intent and the procedural framework of the CrPC. The final decision was reached by balancing the need to ensure justice with the procedural safeguards provided under the law.

The court held that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC must be exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence in the case of conviction. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. The summoning order has to precede the conclusion of the trial by the imposition of sentence in the case of conviction.

“The power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused.”

“In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced.”

“If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.”

The court clarified that the power to summon additional accused can be exercised in a bifurcated trial based on the evidence from that trial, but not based on evidence from the main concluded trial.

The court also provided guidelines for the competent court to follow while exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC. These guidelines include pausing the trial, deciding on summoning, and determining whether to hold a joint or separate trial.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the legal provisions and judicial precedents. The court aimed to strike a balance between ensuring that all those guilty of an offense are brought to book and adhering to the procedural safeguards provided under the law.

The majority opinion was authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justices S.Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna concurring.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence in the case of conviction and before the order of acquittal in the case of acquittal. This clarification provides a definitive timeline for the exercise of this power, ensuring that it is used appropriately within the confines of the law.

The Court held that the power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.

The Court further held that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised in a bifurcated trial based on the evidence from that trial, but not based on evidence from the main concluded trial.

The Court also provided guidelines for the competent court to follow while exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC. These guidelines include pausing the trial, deciding on summoning, and determining whether to hold a joint or separate trial.

Obiter Dicta

While the core of the judgment focuses on the timing of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC, the Court also made several observations that can be considered obiter dicta. These include:

• The importance of ensuring that no guilty person escapes justice due to procedural technicalities.
• The need for courts to exercise their powers under Section 319 of the CrPC judiciously and with due regard to the principles of natural justice.
• The court should pause the trial and decide on summoning the additional accused before proceeding with the main trial.
• The court has the discretion to decide whether to hold a joint or separate trial for the summoned accused.
• The evidence recorded in the main trial cannot be used against the additional accused; a fresh trial must be conducted.

[TABLE] of Ratio Decidendi vs. Obiter Dicta:

These observations, while not directly forming the basis of the decision, provide valuable guidance for lower courts and legal practitioners in the application of Section 319 of the CrPC.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications for criminal trials in India:

• Clarity on Timing: It provides much-needed clarity on the timing of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC, stating that it must be exercised before the pronouncement of the sentence in case of conviction and before the order of acquittal in case of acquittal. This eliminates the ambiguity that existed due to conflicting interpretations in previous judgments.
• Procedural Safeguards: It reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials, ensuring that the power to summon additional accused is not exercised arbitrarily or after the trial has concluded.
• Fair Trial: It ensures a fair trial for the newly added accused, as the court has to conduct a fresh trial against the newly added accused.
• Bifurcated Trials: It clarifies the procedure for bifurcated trials, stating that the power to summon additional accused can be exercised based on evidence from that trial, not the main concluded trial.
• Guidance for Lower Courts: It provides clear guidelines for lower courts on how to exercise their powers under Section 319 of the CrPC, ensuring consistency in the application of the law.
• Impact on Pending Cases: This judgment will have a direct impact on pending cases where the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is being considered or has been exercised.

[TABLE] of Implications:

Overall, the judgment provides a well-defined framework for the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, balancing the need to ensure that all those guilty of an offense are brought to book with the procedural safeguards of a fair trial.

Impact on the Case:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge summoning the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC was not sustainable as it was passed after the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction.

The case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira was remanded back to the trial court with the direction to examine the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira clarifies the scope and timing of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court has provided a definitive answer to the question of when a court can summon additional accused, stating that this power must be exercised before the pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction and before the order of acquittal in case of acquittal. This judgment not only resolves the conflict between previous judgments but also provides a clear and consistent framework for the application of Section 319 of the CrPC in criminal trials across India.

The decision emphasizes the need to balance the objective of ensuring that all those guilty of an offense are brought to book with the procedural safeguards of a fair trial. The judgment is a landmark decision that will have a significant impact on the conduct of criminal trials and the administration of justice in India.

Key Takeaways:

• The power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised before the pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction and before the order of acquittal in case of acquittal.
• A fresh trial is mandatory for additional accused.
• The power to summon additional accused can be exercised in a bifurcated trial based on the evidence from that trial, not the main concluded trial.
• The court has the discretion to decide whether to hold a joint or separate trial for the summoned accused.
• The judgment provides clear guidelines for lower courts on how to exercise their powers under Section 319 of the CrPC.

This judgment serves as a crucial reference point for legal professionals and courts, ensuring that the power to summon additional accused is exercised judiciously and in accordance with the principles of law.