Supreme Court Upholds Summoning of Police Officials Under Section 319 CrPC in Bribery Case: Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs. State of Punjab (2024) INSC 22 (05 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 05 January 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 22
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a trial court summon additional individuals as accused based on evidence presented during a trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of bribery and coercion against police officials. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of additional police officials under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and the need to consider all evidence presented. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, clarifies the scope and application of Section 319 of the CrPC in cases where new evidence surfaces during the trial.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed on December 18, 2012, by Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. against Devraj Miglani for misappropriation of paddy worth Rs. 4.18 crores. This led to the registration of FIR No. 91/2012 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The investigation was later transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, where the appellant, Gurdev Singh Bhalla, was an Inspector and assigned to the case. Devraj Miglani was arrested on August 31, 2013.

Subsequently, on September 6, 2013, Puneet Kumar Miglani, son of Devraj Miglani, filed a complaint alleging that Head Constable Kikkar Singh had demanded Rs. 50,000 from Devraj’s niece, Ritu, at her workplace, the Bathinda branch of SBI. This demand was allegedly made using a slip written by Devraj. Following an inquiry, FIR No. 11/2013 was registered on September 11, 2013, against Kikkar Singh under Sections 166, 383, and 385 of the IPC and relevant sections of the PC Act.

During the trial of FIR No. 11/2013, Puneet Miglani, while giving evidence on September 29, 2014, also filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, seeking to summon Gurdev Singh Bhalla and three other police officials, alleging their involvement in demanding a larger sum of Rs. 24 lakhs for various favors to Devraj while in custody.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially rejected the application under Section 319 of the CrPC on September 8, 2016, citing the lack of sanction under the PC Act and CrPC. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, on January 23, 2018, overturned this decision, stating that no sanction was required and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Subsequently, on March 5, 2018, the Trial Court allowed the application under Section 319 of the CrPC, summoning four police officials, including the appellant, Gurdev Singh Bhalla.

Gurdev Singh Bhalla then challenged this order before the High Court through a criminal revision, arguing that the Trial Court’s order was not in line with the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623], and that the application was a pressure tactic by Puneet Miglani. The High Court dismissed the revision on March 23, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which 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.”

This provision allows a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that they have committed an offense. This power is discretionary and is exercised when the court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the additional person. The Supreme Court has clarified the parameters for exercising this power in several cases, including Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623].

Arguments

The appellant, Gurdev Singh Bhalla, argued that:

• The complaint dated September 6, 2013, did not contain any allegations against him.
• The complaint was only regarding a demand of Rs. 50,000, while the allegation of a Rs. 24 lakh demand was a later fabrication.
• The application under Section 319 of the CrPC was a pressure tactic by Puneet Miglani to retaliate against the appellant for deposing against his father, Devraj.
• The Trial Court and High Court had not examined the merits of the case as to whether the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] were followed.

The respondents, State of Punjab and Ms. Eshaa Miglani, argued that:

• The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence on record.
• The appellant and other police officials had harassed and tortured Devraj and his family members to extract money.
• The statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and during the trial supported the allegations against the appellant.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the initial complaint only mentioned a demand for Rs. 50,000, and the subsequent allegation of a Rs. 24 lakh demand was an afterthought to harass him. He also contended that the application under Section 319 of the CrPC was filed only after he testified against Devraj, indicating a vindictive motive. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the consistent statements of witnesses, including Puneet Miglani, Devraj, and Eshaa Miglani, to support the allegations of bribery and coercion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order summoning the appellant under Section 319 of the CrPC was justified based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the High Court correctly upheld the Trial Court’s order.
3. Whether the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] were satisfied for summoning additional accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by police during investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of additional police officials under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the consistent statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and during the trial, provided sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed against the appellant.

The Court highlighted that the informant, Puneet Miglani, had consistently narrated the facts from the time of his father’s surrender, and his statements were corroborated by Devraj and Eshaa Miglani. The Court also noted that the argument that the application under Section 319 of the CrPC was a counterblast was factually incorrect, as the informant had given similar statements earlier.

The Court stated that the parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] were fully satisfied.

The court observed:

• “The consistent case right from that stage till the statement was recorded during the trial on a number of occasions, the informant has supported the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.”
• “All these witnesses have equivocally narrated the incidents that took place at different places regarding threats, demand of huge sum of money, torture of Devraj etc.”
• “The parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) stand fully satisfied.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and corroborative testimonies of the witnesses, which indicated a pattern of harassment, torture, and extortion by the police officials. The Court found that the evidence presented during the trial provided sufficient grounds to summon the additional police officials under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the initial complaint was not the only basis for the allegations, and that the subsequent statements of witnesses revealed a larger scheme of bribery and coercion.

Key Takeaways

• A court can summon additional individuals as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC if evidence during a trial suggests their involvement in the offense.
• The initial complaint is not the sole basis for allegations; subsequent evidence and witness statements can be considered.
• Consistent and corroborative statements of witnesses are crucial in determining the merit of an application under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] must be satisfied before summoning additional accused.

This judgment reinforces the importance of a fair trial and ensures that all individuals involved in an offense are brought to justice, even if their involvement is revealed during the course of the trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but it clarified that any observations made in the order would not influence the Trial Court in deciding the case on its own merits based on the evidence presented before it.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised when there is sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate the involvement of a person in an offense, even if they were not initially named as an accused. The Court reiterated the parameters laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623], emphasizing that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be exercised judiciously based on the evidence presented during the trial. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new principles of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs. State of Punjab upholds the summoning of additional police officials under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence presented during a trial. The judgment underscores that the power under Section 319 should be exercised when there is sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate the involvement of a person in an offense. This case serves as a reminder that the legal system is designed to ensure that all those involved in a crime are held accountable, regardless of their initial status in the case.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Bribery and Corruption
Child Category: Police Misconduct
Child Category: Criminal Procedure

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is Section 319 of the CrPC?
A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that they have committed an offense.

Q: When can a court use Section 319 of the CrPC?
A: A court can use Section 319 of the CrPC when, during an inquiry or trial, it appears from the evidence that someone not already accused has committed an offense.

Q: What was the main issue in the Gurdev Singh Bhalla case?
A: The main issue was whether the Trial Court was correct in summoning additional police officials under Section 319 of the CrPC based on evidence presented during the trial.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, allowing the summoning of additional police officials, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence presented during the trial.

Q: What does this judgment mean for police officers?
A: This judgment means that police officers can be summoned as accused during a trial if evidence suggests their involvement in an offense, even if they were not initially named as accused.

Q: What is the significance of the Hardeep Singh case in this context?
A: The Hardeep Singh case lays down the principles for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, and the Supreme Court ensured that these principles were followed in this case.