Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an FIR lodged by a complainant alleging embezzlement of ₹55,20,000 from his bank account, with no accused named initially. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against two bank employees. During trial, the complainant's statement led the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant, a bank clerk, along with others, alleging his involvement due to supplying a dim or mis-printed account statement. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate initially rejected this application, but the Sessions Judge allowed a revision and remitted the matter, after which the Magistrate summoned the appellant without assigning reasons. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC with general observations. The core legal issue was whether the summoning was justified under Section 319 CrPC. The appellant argued he was merely a clerk with no authority over withdrawals and the evidence was insufficient, citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The respondents contended the appellant's role in supplying the statement established complicity in fraud. The Supreme Court analyzed the parameters from Hardeep Singh, emphasizing that Section 319 power is discretionary and requires strong evidence more than prima facie case but short of conviction satisfaction. It found that the evidence against the appellant—supplying a poorly printed statement—did not meet this test, as he had no authority in account transactions. The court held the summoning orders were passed without proper application of judicial mind and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the prosecution's application for summoning the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Section 319 CrPC Parameters - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The Supreme Court examined the summoning of a bank clerk as an additional accused in an embezzlement case, applying the test from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. Held that the power under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence more than prima facie case but short of conviction satisfaction, and mere supply of a dim or mis-printed account statement does not meet this threshold, leading to quashing of the summoning order (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summoning of the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12 October 2017 passed by the High Court is set aside and the application filed by the prosecution for summoning the present appellant as an additional accused is dismissed.
Law Points
- Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary
- to be exercised sparingly
- requiring strong and cogent evidence more than prima facie case but short of conviction satisfaction
- not to be exercised casually
