Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging the summoning of the appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The factual background involves a First Information Report lodged on 5 March 2015 against eleven accused for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Arms Act, and the Information Technology Act. Initially, ten accused were charge-sheeted and put on trial in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015. The police filed a second charge sheet that did not name the appellants. On 31 July 2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses PW4 and PW5, which was allowed; these witnesses then named the appellants. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon five additional accused, including the appellants, relying on the statements of PW4, PW5, and PW13. On 31 October 2017, the Sessions Court pronounced judgment convicting the nine other accused and, on the same day, by a separate order, allowed the Section 319 application and summoned the appellants. The appellants challenged this summoning order before the High Court, which dismissed their revision petitions. The Supreme Court considered two issues: whether the summoning order was in breach of Section 319 CrPC, and if so, whether it could be sustained. The appellants argued, relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, that the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only before the pronouncement of judgment, and that the trial court became functus officio after conviction. The respondents contended that the application was filed and heard during trial, and the order was reserved; the simultaneous passing of the conviction and summoning order did not constitute a procedural irregularity. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 319 CrPC and the precedents, particularly Hardeep Singh and Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh. It noted that in Shashikant Singh, the summoning order was passed before the trial ended, whereas in the present case it was passed after the judgment. The Court held that the trial court became functus officio after pronouncing the conviction, and the summoning order was in clear breach of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court, and discharged the appellants from the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC - Stage of Exercise of Power - The power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any time after filing of charge-sheet and before pronouncement of judgment; once the trial concludes and judgment is pronounced, the court becomes functus officio and cannot summon additional accused. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The Supreme Court held that the summoning order passed after the conviction of other accused was in breach of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, and could not be sustained. (Paras 7, 11, 19-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Functus Officio - Section 319 CrPC - Effect of Conviction - Once the trial court pronounces judgment convicting the accused, it becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 319 CrPC. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The court held that the moment the trial is concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment, the stage for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC ends. (Paras 7, 11, 19-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Section 319 CrPC - Commonality of Evidence - Summoning additional accused after conviction based on the same evidence vitiates the principles of fair trial as the court has already considered and pronounced upon that evidence. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The Supreme Court accepted the argument that allowing such application after conviction goes to the root of fair trial. (Paras 8, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Sessions Judge summoning the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC was in breach of the provision, and if so, whether the order could be sustained under the Code.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the summoning order of the Sessions Court, and discharged the appellants from the proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- functus officio
- summoning after conviction
- stage of exercise of power
- commonality of evidence
- fair trial
