Case Note & Summary
The criminal revision petition was filed in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, which dismissed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as premature. The petitioner, the first informant and an injured eyewitness, had given an examination-in-chief detailing the specific overt acts of the proposed accused persons whose names were mentioned in the FIR but omitted from the charge sheet. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that PW1 had not been cross-examined and other eyewitnesses were yet to be examined. The revision petitioner contended that such a view was erroneous and against settled law, as the deposition itself provided sufficient material to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. The respondents argued that the application was correctly dismissed as premature because the evidence had not been tested by cross-examination and other witnesses were yet to depose. The State supported the petitioner, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The High Court examined the legal position under Section 319 Cr.P.C and held that waiting for cross-examination is not necessary; the power can be exercised on the basis of examination-in-chief if a prima facie case is disclosed. The Court relied on Hardeep Singh, which clarified that the degree of satisfaction required is lower than proof and that there is no logic in awaiting cross-examination. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C in accordance with law, holding that the application was not premature and should be decided on its merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Prematurity of Application - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The trial court dismissed an application to summon additional accused as premature because PW1 had not been cross-examined and other eyewitnesses were yet to be examined. The High Court held that cross-examination is not a prerequisite for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C; the court can act on examination-in-chief if a prima facie case of involvement appears. Following Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400, the revisional court set aside the order and directed reconsideration (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as premature on the ground that the witness (PW1) had not been cross-examined and other witnesses were yet to be examined
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to consider the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C afresh, holding that cross-examination is not a precondition and that the trial court's approach was erroneous. The revision petition was allowed.
Law Points
- Section 319 Cr.P.C can be invoked based on prima facie evidence in examination-in-chief
- cross-examination of witness not necessary
- degree of satisfaction required is lower than proof
