Supreme Court: Conclusion Of Trial Won’t Have Bearing On Adjudication Of Application U/S 319 CrPC In Terms Of HC’s Directions In Revisional Order

The Supreme Court held that the conclusion of trial will not have a bearing on the adjudication of an Application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in terms of the directions of the High Court in its Revisional Order.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which rejected an Application and affirmed the Sessions Court’s Order summoning the accused persons under Section 319 of CrPC.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “We have discussed in the preceding parts of this judgment that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be rendered nugatory solely because the trial was not stayed by the High Court and stood concluded before the High Court could pass the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will not have a bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed by way of a revisional order.”

The Bench further observed that the Order passed in revision by the High Court cannot be rendered ineffective merely on procedural grounds especially when it involves substantive rights of the parties and seeks to cure a patent illegality.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the Appellants while AOR Shaurya Sahay appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

In 2009, an FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against five persons in connection with a murder of the informant’s brother. It was alleged that the Appellants (two in number) i.e., the accused persons exhorted the other co-accused to kill the deceased and as a result of such instigation, the said co-accused fired at the deceased using their pistols resulting into his death. While the trial against the chargesheeted accused persons was in progress, the informant filed an Application under Section 319 of the CrPC praying to summon the other three persons named in the FIR to face the trial along with the chargesheeted accused persons.

However, the Trial Court rejected the said Application on the ground that a person could be summoned by the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC provided that there is cogent and reliable evidence indicating towards the complicity of such person in the commission of an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused persons already put to trial. Resultantly, the informant filed a Revision Petition and the High Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider his prayer for summoning the concerned accused persons. However, the Trial Court rejected his second application as well and again he preferred a Revision Petition. The High Court then set aside the Trial Court’s Order and allowed the Revision Petition. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the Summoning Order, challenged the same but their application was rejected by the High Court. Hence, they were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The power under Section 319 can only be exercised in a situation where the Trial Court is seized of the offence committed in the “same transaction”. When the trial is concluded, such court becomes functus officio and the power to summon persons under Section 319 for the offences alleged to have been committed in the same transaction no longer vests with the said court as the new persons sought to be summoned cannot be tried together with the original accused.”

The Court said that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC must be exercised by the Court against the proposed accused before the conclusion of the trial in respect of the original accused.

“The peculiarity of the present case lies in the fact that although the application under Section 319 of the CrPC was rejected before the conclusion of the trial, the same came to be allowed after the conclusion of the trial, and the case was remanded by the High Court for a fresh consideration due to a patent illegality in the order of rejection passed by the Trial Court”, it further noted.

The Court clarified that although the law allows for travelling back of the Revisional Order of the High Court, yet it is far from ideal to do so after the passage of a substantial period of time, in this case, ten years after the conclusion of trial.

“The correct approach to be adopted in cases like this is that the High Court should direct the Trial Court to stay its proceedings till the revision proceedings in respect of Section 319 are disposed of. At the same time, the High Court must also expedite the revision proceedings so as to ensure that unreasonable delay is not caused in the conclusion of trial”, it added.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded the following points –

a. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by respondent no. 2 under Section 319 of the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality, thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice.

b. Once a superior court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of revisional powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC must be treated on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court and as a result would relate back to the time the original order was passed.

c. By virtue of relating back of the order passed by the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second application under Section 319, and therefore could be said to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial.

d. Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

e. The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial.

f. The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021. Therefore, the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional order passed by the High Court.

g. Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per Section 319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with the other accused.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and directed the Trial Court to take necessary steps in furtherance of the Summoning Order.

Cause Title- Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 330)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, AOR Anshuman, Advocates Shaantanu Devansh, and Rudrali Patil.

Respondents: AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocates Aditya Kumar, and Ruchil Raj.

Click here to read/download the Judgment