Not Necessary To Give Opportunity Of Hearing To Person Summoned U/Section 319 CrPC Before Adding Him As Accused : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC need not be given opportunity of hearing before being added as an accused.

"The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is not at all contemplated therein.", the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.

In this case, a person was summoned under Section 319 CrPC and added as an accused by the Trial Court. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition filed against this order and thus the accused approached the Apex Court.

Placing reliance on some observations made in Jogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2015) 9 SCC 244, the accused, in the appeal before Apex Court, contended that it is necessary that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC must be heard before his addition as an accused to be tried along with other accused already facing trial. If such a hearing is not provided to the accused then the rights of the persons summoned to be added as an accused would be jeopardised, it was urged.

Referring to Constitution bench judgments in Hardeep Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92, Sukhpal Singh Khair vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, and Brijendra Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, the court made these observations:

A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack the trial

"Merely because in certain proceedings the persons summoned had been provided an opportunity of being heard cannot be the same thing as stating that it is a mandatory requirement or a precondition that at the time of summoning a person under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., he should be given an opportunity of being heard. That is not the mandate of law inasmuch as Section 319 clearly uses the expression “to proceed” which means to proceed with the trial and not to jeopardise the trial at the instance of the person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a trial within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of the case and particularly against the accused who are already facing trail and who may be in custody. A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack the trial so to say and deviate from its focus and take it to a tangent in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape trial. All that is contemplated when a person is summoned to appear is to ascertain that he is the very person who was summoned and if any summoned person fails to appear on the given date. On the appearance of the summoned person, no procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard is envisaged before been added as an accused to the list of accused already facing trial unless such a summoned person had already been discharged, in which event, an inquiry is contemplated as discussed above. Thus, the contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh that such a summoned person can assail a summoning order before a superior 29 Court and will also have the right of cross examining the witnesses as well as can let in his defence evidence, if any.

 "The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C"

 "Thus, the lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other accused. This, being a salutary provision in order to meet the ends of justice, the same cannot be diluted by importing within the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. principles of natural justice which in any case would be followed during the trial. It is well settled that principles of natural justice cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and they would depend upon the facts of each case and the object and purpose to be achieved under a provision of law.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not think that the judgment in Jogendra Yadav calls for any re-consideration and the said observation in paragraph 9 as extracted supra is relatable only to the facts of the said case. Thus, the principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is not at all contemplated therein. In the circumstances, we do not accept the contentions of the appellants herein."

While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that the observations made in Jogendra Yadav case cannot be considered to be the ratio of the said judgment. Further, the context in which the observations are made in paragraph must relate to the facts of the said case where an opportunity was in fact provided to the persons summoned therein. 

Case details

Yashodhan Singh vs State of UP | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 | 2023  INSC 652

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 319 - The contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C - The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other accused. (Para 32-34)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Sections 319, 227 - When power is exercised the under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person to be added as an accused in the trial to be tried along with other accused, such a person cannot seek discharge as the court would have exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on a satisfaction derived from the evidence that has emerged during the evidence recorded in the course of trial and such satisfaction is of a higher degree than the satisfaction which is derived by the court at the time of framing of charge. (Para 24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Sections 319, 190 - The exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not at the initial stage where cognizance is taken of the offence and the summoning order is passed before committal of the matter to the Sessions Court. That power exercised under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is quite distinct from the power exercised by the Trial Court/Sessions Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C - Scope of Section 319 CrPC discussed - Referred to Hardeep Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92, Sukhpal Singh Khair vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, and Brijendra Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706. (Para 22-27)

Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and they would depend upon the facts of each case and the object and purpose to be achieved under a provision of law. (Para 33)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment