In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the power of trial courts to summon additional accused persons based on evidence recorded during trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a summoning order, emphasizing that the satisfaction of the court is paramount in exercising this power.
Case Background:
The case, Criminal Revision No. 809 of 2024, was filed by Chetram (revisionist) against the State of U.P. and another. The revision challenged an order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-2nd, Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 321 of 2018. The original case stemmed from Crime No. 117 of 2018, registered under Sections 307, 452, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Herdi, District Bahraich.
Key Legal Issues:
1. The scope and application of Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused.
2. The nature of evidence required for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
3. Whether material collected during investigation should be considered while summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
Justice Abdul Moin, who presided over the case, dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court’s order. The court made several important observations:
1. On the power of summoning:
The court emphasized that “the scope of exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code is vested with the court i.e. the power to summon is exclusively of the court.”
2. On the evidence required:
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, the court noted: “The ‘evidence’ is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial.”
3. On the satisfaction of the court:
The court observed that “prerequisite for exercise of the power under Section 319 of the Code is the satisfaction of the court to proceed against a person who is not an accused but against whom evidence is there.”
4. On considering investigation material:
While addressing the revisionist’s argument about considering investigation material, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yashodhan Singh vs State of U.P., stating that such material “can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC.”
The court concluded that there was no perversity in the impugned order, as the trial court had considered the statements of Prosecution Witnesses 1, 2, and 3 to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction for summoning the revisionist.
Also Read
Parties and Counsel:
– Revisionist: Chetram, represented by Krishna Gopal
– Opposite Party: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow and Another
– State Counsel: Anurag Verma, A.G.A.
