Power u/s 319 CrPC can’t be exercised unless case reaches stage of inquiry or trial: Supreme Court

Read Judgment: Manjeet Singh vs. State Of Haryana & Ors

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, August 27, 2021: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Magistrate at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 CrPC, to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Session. 

A Division Bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah observed that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power u/s 319 CrPC cannot be exercised.

“The stage of inquiry does not contemplate any evidence in its strict legal sense, nor could the legislature have contemplated this inasmuch as the stage for evidence has not yet arrived. The only material that the court has before it is the material collected by the prosecution and the court at this stage prima facie can apply its mind to find out as to whether a person, who can be an accused, has been erroneously omitted from being arraigned or has been deliberately excluded by the prosecuting agencies,” added the Bench.

The observation came pursuant to an order passed by the High Court in confirming the Trial Court’s order dismissing an application u/s 319 CrPC to summon private respondents as additional accused. 

Going by the background of the case, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Assandh on the basis of the statement of one Rann Singh, regarding the death of his son Amarjit Singh and the injuries having been suffered by the present appellant (Manjeet Singh), alleging fire shots by Sartaj Singh from his licenced revolver. 

The matter was then investigated and a final report was filed only against Sartaj Singh whereas all other accused were exonerated. In the course of trial and during cross-examination, an application u/s 319 CrPC was given on behalf of the complainant for summoning of additional accused. The application was however dismissed. 

After considering the arguments, the Top Court said that Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial.

Accordingly, the Top Court held that the court can exercise the power u/s 319 CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence. 

However, there is no difficulty in invoking powers of Section 319 CrPC at the stage of trial in a complaint case when the evidence of the complainant as well as his witnesses are being recorded, added the Court. 

The Division Bench further went on to hold that the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power u/s 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation.

The Apex Court also opined that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. 

The “evidence” is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial, added the Court. 

Stating that there is no scope for the court acting u/s 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused, the Top Court observed that the test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power u/s 319 CrPC.

The Apex Court therefore allowed the appeal and concluded that the trial Court as well as the High Court have materially erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 CrPC and refusing to summon the private respondents to face the trial.