In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the summoning of an additional accused, Devendra Kumar Pal, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, holding that such an order is unsustainable when passed after the pronouncement of a conviction. The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the ruling in Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6960 of 2021).
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Devendra Kumar Pal, who was summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge on March 21, 2012, for trial under Section 319 of the CrPC after the court had already passed a conviction order for certain accused persons and an acquittal order for others on the same day. The order was later upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on August 25, 2021.
The trial involved charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to murder. After the trial court convicted some of the accused and acquitted others, it invoked its powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon Devendra Kumar Pal for trial, believing that he was also involved in the offence.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issue before the Supreme Court was the legality of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC, which was issued after the trial court had already pronounced the order of conviction and sentence against the other accused.
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, argued that the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC could not be sustained as it was passed after the conviction and sentencing of other accused, citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab (2023). According to the Constitution Bench, the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, specifically before the pronouncement of the conviction and sentence order.
On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the respondent-State, contended that the summoning order and the sentencing order were passed “in the same breath,” and thus the facts and circumstances of each case should be considered.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court found that the issue was no longer res integra (an unsettled question of law) in light of the Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
Quoting from the Constitution Bench’s judgment, the Court reiterated:
“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. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. If such a 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 noted that in the present case, the order of conviction and acquittal was pronounced by the trial court in the first half of the day, followed by the sentencing order and only thereafter the order under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant. Thus, it was evident that the summoning order was issued after the order of conviction and sentencing, which is not permissible under the law.
Justice B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, observed:
“Sitting in a two-judge combination, we are bound by the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court.”
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated August 25, 2021, and set aside the trial court’s order dated March 21, 2012, summoning Devendra Kumar Pal.
