May 10, 2019:

Supreme Court wants an answer to a delicate question related to summoning power of a court in respect of additional accused when the trial has been concluded.

 

A bench of Justice Ramana and Justice Shantanagoudar has passed the judgment in the case titled as SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB  on 10.05.2019.

The factual narration of this case is that on 05.03.2015, a First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad against eleven accused for the offence committed under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Section 25­A of the Arms Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Initially, under the 1st charge sheet dated 06.09.2015, ten accused were summoned and put to trial in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015. Even though a second charge sheet was filed by the police, the same did not name the appellants herein. Subsequently, on 31.07.2017, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC for recalling PW­4 and PW­5, which came to be allowed. On such recall the aforesaid witnesses named the ­appellants herein. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of CrPC in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015 for summoning additional five accused. On 31.10.2017, the Sessions Court first pronounced the judgment in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015, convicting the nine other accused put on trial. On the same day, by a separate order the Sessions Court, while allowing the application of the prosecution, summoned appellants herein under Section 319 of CrPC.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it observed "We note that the difference of formulation in the reference questions and the final order of the Constitution Bench with respect to the Question no. 1, makes a difference with regard to the present case. It is precisely the gap, between the restricted reformulation of the ‘Question no. 1’ by the Constitution Bench and the ‘Question no. 1’ in the reference order of the Hardeep Singh Case, which these unique facts fit into. The earlier ‘Question no.1’ in the reference Order was broader in comparison to the ‘Reformulated Question no. 1’ by the Constitution Bench. It is this marginal area which is a sub­silentio, that needs to be referred to a larger Bench again".

The Supreme Court then referred the following questions for consideration by larger bench:

I. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co­accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

II. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?

III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

 

Read the judgment here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :