Jamin vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 330 - S. 319 CrPC - Revisional Jurisdiction
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319, 397-401 -Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gives effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected. (Para 115)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial- However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. (Para 115)
Legal Maxims - Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur - The Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted. (Para 38)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in Column 2 of the chargesheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or even a person who has been discharged. However, as regards a person who has been discharged, no proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 CrPC without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 CrPC. Such a person can be proceeded against under Section 319 only if during or after an inquiry under Section 300(5) read with Section 398, there appears to be evidence against such person which may indicate that they committed any offence for which they could be tried together with the accused- if the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial shows that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, he can be summoned to face trial even though he may not have been chargesheeted by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -While the provision of de novo or fresh trial under Section 319(4) is mandatory, the said sub-section is applicable only in cases where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1). Thus, a de novo trial can be commenced in respect of the proposed accused only if the power under sub-section (1) has been validly exercised by the court. (Para 46)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - The expression “could be tried together with the accused” for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 is mandatory in the sense that a joint trial of the original accused and proposed accused must be possible. However, whether a joint trial, or a separate trial, is held is left to the discretion of the Trial Court. As a result, passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is mandatory. It cannot be said for a moment that passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is directory merely because sub-section (4) provides for conduct of a fresh trial in respect of the additional accused. (Para 66)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -For a person to be summoned under Section 319 in the split-up trial, the condition precedent is that the evidence taken in the split-up trial by itself should indicate towards the involvement of the proposed accused in the offence. (Para 58)
Does conclusion of trial has an affect on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 CrPC in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gives effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected. (Para 115)
Should a summoned person under Section 319 CrPC must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial?
Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. (Para 115)
Suppose if Trial Court rejects the application to summon a person under Section 319 CrPC - In Revision, HC is inclined to interfere with this order - Should the accused be heard at that stage?
However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. (Para 115)
Is passing of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC before the conclusion of trial mandatory. ?
The expression “could be tried together with the accused” for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 is mandatory in the sense that a joint trial of the original accused and proposed accused must be possible. However, whether a joint trial, or a separate trial, is held is left to the discretion of the Trial Court. As a result, passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is mandatory. It cannot be said for a moment that passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is directory merely because sub-section (4) provides for conduct of a fresh trial in respect of the additional accused. (Para 66)