Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, originally named as accused Nos.2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 in the FIR, were dropped by the police during investigation and not arraigned in the charge sheet filed against 14 other accused persons. During the trial in Spl.C.No.59/2010 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, the complainant (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief testified against the petitioners. The Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the petitioners as additional accused. The Sessions Court allowed the application and ordered issuance of summons to the petitioners as additional accused Nos.15 to 19. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and held that the power to summon additional accused is discretionary and must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence appears during trial against a person not facing trial. The court noted that the petitioners were dropped by the police in the charge sheet and the only evidence against them was the complainant's examination-in-chief, which was not corroborated by any other material. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order, observing that the trial court had not applied its mind to the requirement of evidence under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and had mechanically allowed the application. The revision petition was allowed, and the order dated 20.04.2017 was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Requirement of Evidence - The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if during trial evidence appears against a person not being accused. Mere naming in FIR or charge sheet is not sufficient; there must be strong and cogent evidence during trial. In this case, the complainant's examination-in-chief alone, without corroboration, was held insufficient to summon the petitioners who were dropped by police in the charge sheet. (Paras 3-4)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Exercise of Power - The court must apply its mind and record satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the proposed accused. The Sessions Court's order was set aside as it did not consider that the petitioners were dropped by the investigating agency and no new material emerged during trial. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based solely on the examination-in-chief of the complainant (PW-1) without any corroborative material.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Spl.C.No.59/2010. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires strong and cogent evidence during trial to summon additional accused
- mere naming in FIR or charge sheet not sufficient
- power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (06) 22
Criminal Revision Petition No.526/2017
Sri Tomy Sebastian, Sr. Adv. for Sri Reny Sebastian, Adv. for petitioners; Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1; Sri N. Devhadass, Sr. Adv. for Smt. K.S. Anasuya Devi, Adv. for R2
Sri Venkatappa, Sri Narayanaswamy, Sri Venkatesha, Sri Narayanaswamy, Sri Muniraju
State of Karnataka, Sri Munikrishnappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging order summoning petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of order dated 20.04.2017 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Spl.C.No.59/2010 allowing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and ordering inclusion of petitioners as additional accused Nos.15 to 19.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were named in FIR but dropped in charge sheet; during trial, complainant testified against them, leading to application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. being allowed.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court allowed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and issued summons to petitioners as additional accused.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based solely on the examination-in-chief of the complainant (PW-1) without any corroborative material.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were dropped by police in charge sheet and no new evidence emerged during trial to justify summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Respondent/State supported the order, contending that complainant's testimony during trial constituted evidence under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused is discretionary and must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence appears during trial against a person not facing trial. Mere naming in FIR or charge sheet, or uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, is insufficient to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court must apply its mind and record satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the proposed accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The fact is, the respondent/Police registered a FIR against ten accused persons, subsequently, charge sheet was filed against 14 accused persons by dropping five accused Nos.2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 (petitioners herein) cited in the FIR and arraigning nine others.
While the complainant was examined as PW-1, during examination-in-chief evidence, he testified against the petitioners herein.
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if during trial evidence appears against a person not being accused. Mere naming in FIR or charge sheet is not sufficient; there must be strong and cogent evidence during trial.
Procedural History
FIR registered against ten accused persons. Charge sheet filed against 14 accused persons, dropping petitioners (accused Nos.2,3,8,9,10 in FIR). Trial commenced in Spl.C.No.59/2010. During examination of complainant as PW-1, he testified against petitioners. Special Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Sessions Court allowed application on 20.04.2017, summoning petitioners as additional accused Nos.15 to 19. Petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.526/2017 before High Court of Karnataka. High Court allowed revision and set aside order on 22.06.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 319, 397, 401
