LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after convicting and sentencing other co-accused.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Devendra Kumar Pal vs. State of U.P.
[Judgment Date]: September 6, 2024
Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 679
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a trial court summon an additional accused after the main trial has concluded and a judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the powers of a trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This judgment clarifies the procedure for summoning additional accused persons in criminal trials, ensuring that such orders are passed at the appropriate stage.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment. Justice B.R. Gavai authored the opinion for the bench.
Case Background
The case originated from a trial concerning an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After the trial concluded, the Trial Judge convicted some of the accused and acquitted others. The Trial Judge also believed that the present appellant, Devendra Kumar Pal, should be tried as well.
On March 21, 2012, the Trial Judge first recorded the conviction and acquittal orders in the first half of the day. After lunch, the Trial Judge passed the sentencing orders for those convicted. Following this, the Trial Judge invoked Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon Devendra Kumar Pal for trial as an additional accused.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Undisclosed Date | Trial commenced for an offense under Section 302 of the IPC. |
| March 21, 2012 (First Half) | Trial Judge recorded orders of conviction for some accused and acquittal for others. |
| March 21, 2012 (Post Lunch) | Trial Judge passed sentencing orders for the convicted accused. |
| March 21, 2012 (Post Sentencing) | Trial Judge passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon Devendra Kumar Pal as an additional accused. |
| August 25, 2021 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appellant’s petition challenging the Trial Court’s order. |
| September 6, 2024 | Supreme Court of India quashed the summoning order and the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order dated March 21, 2012, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition on August 25, 2021, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This section empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. states:
“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.”
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of this section, particularly concerning the timing of summoning additional accused, is central to this case.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, argued that the Trial Court’s order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was not sustainable because it was passed after the conviction and sentencing of the other accused.
- He relied on the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2023 1 SCC 289], where the issue of summoning an additional accused after the conclusion of the trial of co-accused was referred to a Constitution Bench.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that the Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira held that if the conviction and summoning orders are on the same date, the court must examine the specific facts of the case.
- He contended that in this case, the sentencing and summoning orders were passed in the same breath and therefore, the Trial Court’s order was valid.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Summoning order passed after conviction and sentencing is invalid. | Appellant |
| Validity of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Constitution Bench ruling requires examination of facts if orders are on the same date. | Respondent |
| Validity of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Sentencing and summoning orders were passed in the same breath. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
- Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction and sentence was rendered before summoning the additional accused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court can summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after convicting and sentencing other co-accused? | No. | The Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira clarified that the summoning order must precede the conclusion of the trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on the following authority:
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2023 1 SCC 289]: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified the procedure for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2023 1 SCC 289] | Supreme Court of India | The court followed the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench regarding the timing of summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The summoning order was passed after the conviction and sentencing of the co-accused and is therefore invalid. | Appellant | Accepted. The court held that the summoning order should have preceded the sentencing order. |
| The sentencing and summoning orders were passed on the same day, and therefore, the Trial Court’s order is valid. | Respondent | Rejected. The court clarified that even if the orders are on the same day, the summoning order must precede the sentencing order. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2023 1 SCC 289]* and held that the summoning order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be passed before the order of sentence in cases of conviction.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to adhere to the procedural guidelines established by the Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process by ensuring that the summoning of additional accused occurs at the correct stage. The Court prioritized the procedural correctness over the factual circumstances of the case, focusing on the timing of the summoning order in relation to the sentencing order.
The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the principle that the summoning of an additional accused should not be an afterthought, but should be considered and decided before the conclusion of the trial with respect to the original accused.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Procedural Guidelines | 60% |
| Importance of Timing | 30% |
| Precedence of Law over Factual Circumstances | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The court’s decision was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and the procedural guidelines laid down in the Sukhpal Singh Khaira case. The factual circumstances of the case were secondary to the legal principles involved.
Logical Reasoning
Reasons for the Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira clearly stated that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. must be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence in the case of conviction.
- In the present case, the Trial Judge passed the order of conviction and acquittal in the first half of the day and the sentencing order and the summoning order in the second half of the day. This sequence violated the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench.
- The Supreme Court, being a two-judge bench, was bound by the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.
- The Court held that the summoning order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable in law.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira:
“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…Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. 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.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must exercise their power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused before pronouncing the order of sentence in cases of conviction.
- If the summoning order and sentencing order are passed on the same day, the summoning order must precede the sentencing order.
- Failure to adhere to this procedure will render the summoning order invalid.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of following the procedural guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and the Trial Court’s order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court cannot summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. after the judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed against other co-accused. The summoning order must precede the sentencing order, even if both orders are passed on the same day. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the procedural guidelines established in Sukhpal Singh Khaira, ensuring that the power to summon additional accused is exercised at the correct stage of the trial.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court’s judgment and the Trial Court’s order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated the principle that summoning an additional accused must occur before the sentencing of the convicted co-accused, as established in Sukhpal Singh Khaira. This judgment ensures adherence to the correct procedure in criminal trials, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.