CrPC Section 319 - Power To Proceed Against Other Persons

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) confers special jurisdiction on the Courts. They may summon or proceed against persons who are not originally accused but appear to be guilty of an offence founded upon the evidence adduced during the course of an inquiry or trial. This Section is intended to ensure that everyone who has a hand in the commission of an offence be held accountable, even if the extent of his involvement only surfaces during trial.

Legal Provision Of CrPC Section 319

“Section 319- Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

1. Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
2. Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
3. Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then -
   1. the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
   2. subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”

Simplified Explanation Of CrPC Section 319

Sub-Section (1): Summoning Additional Persons

Section 319(1) confers power upon the Courts to frame charges against persons who may not have been originally accused but appear on facts before the trial to be guilty of the offence. It means that if such new evidence incriminates another person during the course of the trial of the main accused, then that person can be summoned and the Court can proceed as if he were an accused all along the trial.

The objective of this subsection is to prevent an incomplete or partial trial where some offenders might escape justice purely because their names do not appear in the charge sheet or FIR.

Sub-Section (2): Arrest or Summoning of Persons Not Present in Court

Sub-section (2) talks about cases where, from available evidence, the person who appears to be guilty is not present in Court. In such instances, the Court can either summon or cause that person to be arrested if the circumstances of the case require it. This subsection empowers the Court to enforce its decision and force the presence of that person in the judicial process for trial.

Sub-Section (3): Detention of Persons Attending the Court

Sub-section (3) empowers the Court to detain any person attending the Court, who is not originally under arrest or upon a summons but appears to be guilty of the offence under trial.

Sub-Section (4): Procedure After Summons

Sub-section (4) provides where the Court proceeds under Section 319(1), the procedure followed shall be:

1. Once a new person is summoned as an accused, the proceeding in respect of that person must necessarily begin de novo and the witnesses must be re-heard. The rationale for this is that the newly summoned person cannot be deprived of the opportunity to present the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses.
2. The trial shall proceed as if that person was an accused from the very beginning. After compliance with Clause (a), the case can continue where all the accused are treated as if they were charged together from the beginning.

Case Laws Related To CrPC Section 319

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others (1982)

In this case, the Court held that powers under Section 319 of the Code shall be exercised cautiously and judiciously, only when there are compelling reasons to do so. The Court held the following:

• The Court clarified that Section 319 deals with the gap that existed under Section 351 of the previous Code on how to proceed when a new person is needed to be added as an accused. The present provision had been made with suggestions of the Law Commission's 41st Report for filling this lacuna.
• Citing the judgement of Joginder Singh & Anr vs. State Of Punjab & Anr (1978), the Court affirmed that Section 319 (1) applies to all Courts, including Sessions Courts. In that sense, a Sessions Court can include any person against whom incriminating evidence gathered in the course of the trial which connects him with the commission of the offence as an accused, to be tried with the existing accused persons.
• While appreciating the ability of the Court to use Section 319 for taking cognizance against persons not originally named as accused if new evidence supports their involvement, the Court stressed that this power is exceptional.
• The Court held that dismissal of proceedings against certain persons does not restrict the discretionary powers of Section 319 of the Code. If compelling evidence subsequently comes forward establishing the involvement of those persons, the Court is still vested with the discretion to take cognizance.

Hardeep Singh vs. State Of Punjab & Ors (2014)

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified a few very important issues relating to applicability and interpretation of Section 319 of the Code. The Court held the following:

• Stage to Exercise Power under Section 319 of the Code: The Court observed that Section 319 is available at any stage of the proceeding after filing of the chargesheet and before pronouncement of the final judgement. It, however, excludes preliminary stages such as compliance with Section 207/208 of the Code or committal proceedings, which are merely a matter of administration and do not involve proper judicial scrutiny of the merits of the case.
• Interpretation of the term “Evidence” in Section 319 of the Code: The Court clarified that in Section 319 of the Code “evidence” refers especially to the statements and documents which were presented before the Court during an inquiry or trial. Information collected during the investigation stage can only be used as corroborative or contradictory evidence given in the Court.
• Use of Evidence from Examination-in-Chief: The Court held that it is not mandatory to wait until cross-examination for invoking Section 319 of the Code. If the Court finds sufficient material for summoning an individual based on the examination-in-chief of a witness, then the Court can summon him. The waiting for cross-examination is deemed unnecessary because the person being summoned is not yet a party to the trial and does not have any right to cross-examine the witnesses at that stage.
• Degree of Satisfaction Required: Court observed that while exercising power under Section 319, higher degree of satisfaction is required than mere framing a prima facie case which is done at the stage of framing of charges. It is not as stringent as proof beyond reasonable doubt. There must be evidence to convince that the person could be convicted if tried.
• Application to Persons not named in FIR or Chargesheet: The Court also held that a person who has not been named in the FIR or charge sheet can be summoned under Section 319 if the evidence is pointing towards such a person being involved in the commission of that offence. This Section includes persons referred to in Column 2 of the charge-sheet (persons against whom evidence exists but who are not charged).
• Summoning Discharged Persons: The Court held that persons who had already been discharged in the case could be summoned again under Section 319, but only after following the procedure provided under Sections 300(5) and 398 of the Code. These Sections require an inquiry by the High Court or Sessions Judge before a discharged person can be retried.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State Of Punjab (2022)

The Court in this case gave a detailed elaboration concerning the working of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code. The key points from the judgement are given below:

• Timing of Invoking Section 319: The Court held that the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code must be invoked and executed before pronouncing sentence in cases of conviction or before passing an order of acquittal in cases of acquittal. Thus, the summoning order should be issued before the trial concludes with a pronouncement either of sentence or acquittal.
• Applicability in Bifurcated Trials: Where the trials were bifurcated where the absconding accused having been later arrested, the Court would retain its powers to summon additional accused based on the evidence presented during the ongoing trial of the absconding accused. However, it was clarified that evidence of a concluded main trial cannot form the basis for summoning other accused in a separate oning trial if the power of summoning was not exercised during the main trial.

The Court further went on to outline the guidelines which the competent Court should follow while exercising its power under Section 319 of the Code. The key guidelines are as follows:

• Suspension of Trial: If, after charge is framed and before judgement, there is material evidence suggesting the Court about the involvement of another person in the commission of the crime, then it should suspend the trial of that case.
• Decision on Summon and Nature of Trial: The Court must then decide whether it will summon the additional accused. In the event that summoning is deemed necessary, the Court must then determine if a joint trial with the existing accused or a separate trial is more appropriate.
• Separate Trials: If the Court decides the case for separate trial, it can then proceed to pronounce judgement (conviction and sentence, or acquittal) in the main case before conducting the proceedings against the summoned accused.
• Re-Hearing in Particular Circumstances: When the need to invoke Section 319 of the Code arises after hearing of the arguments and the case is reserved for judgement, the Court should schedule a re-hearing. At the re-hearing, the Court should follow the established procedures for summonsing, determining joint or separate trials, and the Court shall proceed accordingly.

Limitations And Safeguards

Even though Section 319 is a potent provision, certain limitations have been provided with respect to the rights of an individual. These are as follows:

• Requirement of Strong Evidence: The Court needs to be convinced that evidence against the person is quite strong before summoning him as an accused. Suspicions or weak evidence are not enough.
• Right of a Fair Trial: When a person is summoned to the Court, the trial must restart for them. This ensures that they have been given a chance to hear all the evidence and be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.
• Judicial Discretion: The power of the Court to invoke Section 319 must be based on proper consideration of facts and evidence. Courts are expected to invoke this power strictly where it will be essential for justice.

Conclusion

Section 319 of the Code is among the most important provisions for the Indian legal system. This Section ensures that justice is not denied to victims only due to the fact that someone was not considered as an accused at the preliminary investigation. Therefore, this Section allows the Court to bring in new individuals into the trial if evidence shows them to be guilty. However, this power is exercised with caution to balance the rights of the accused with the need to ensure that all offenders are brought to justice.