No Illegality In Considering S.319 CrPC Application After Trial Based On HC's Revision Order : Supreme Court

In a key ruling on Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court on Thursday (March 6) held that while the power to summon an additional accused must be exercised before the trial concludes, if a pre-trial application for summoning is rejected and the High Court, in revision, sets aside the rejection and orders reconsideration, the application cannot be dismissed solely because it was heard after the trial ends. The Court ruled that it relates back to the original pre-trial rejection order.

“What can be discerned from the aforesaid is that if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either setting aside or modifying the order of the Trial Court for the purpose of Section 319, the same would relate back to the original order passed by the Trial Court and substitute it to the extent of modification.”, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

The Court ruled that the High Court's revisional order, setting aside the trial court's rejection of a summoning application, relates back to the trial court's original rejection order. Thus, even if the trial concludes while the revision is pending, the High Court's directive for reconsideration remains valid. The trial court's subsequent reconsideration of the application, post-trial, would not be deemed illegal merely because it occurred after the trial's conclusion.

“an order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would relate back to the order of the Trial Court. In the present case, the Trial Court in its discretion rejected the second application filed under Section 319 before the conclusion of trial vide order dated 19.07.2010. The High Court, more than ten years after the conclusion of trial, set aside the said order and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319 afresh. In our considered view, such order passed by the High Court on the second application under Section 319 travels back to 19.07.2010 i.e., the date when the Trial Court rejected the said application. The effect of the order of the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court cannot be considered functus officio as regards considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial. We say so because the Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, is merely giving effect to a revisionary order directing it to freshly consider the application which it had originally rejected.”, the court observed.

The Case

The bench heard the case originated from an FIR lodged on April 14, 2009. The allegations were against five individuals for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with a murder.

Initially, a charge sheet was filed against two accused, while investigations continued against others. The trial court framed charges on October 27, 2009, leading to the conviction of Irshad and Irfan in 2011.

A subsequent application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused was rejected in 2010.

The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction in 2021, directed the trial court to reconsider an application under Section 319.

The trial court subsequently summoned the additional accused persons in 2024, which led to the present appeal.

Issues

Apart from other issues, the main issues that felled for the Court's consideration were:

1. Was the High Court correct in using its revisional jurisdiction to overturn the Trial Court's rejection of the second Section 319 Cr.P.C. application filed by respondent no. 2?

2. Could the Trial Court entertain a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application after the trial's conclusion, especially when the High Court had not stayed the trial?

Decision

Answering the first question in the affirmative, the judgment penned by Justice Pardiwala, emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 319 Cr.P.C. to ensure no guilty person escapes trial. The Court observed that the power under this section can be invoked if new evidence emerges during the trial, necessitating the inclusion of an additional accused.

“Section 319 has been included in the statute book with the object of ensuring effective administration of justice. The legislature enacted Section 319 to eliminate any situation wherein the courts would feel helpless in proceeding against any person who appears to be guilty of committing an offence, more particularly, in cases where the investigating agency or prosecution files chargesheet only against a few persons in relation to an offence and leaves out a few others either intentionally or unintentionally. The said section empowers the courts to proceed with persons who are not the accused before it, upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the provision.”, the court observed.

The Court further laid out three essential requirements that must be fulfilled for invoking the powers under Section 319 (1) of Cr.P.C. thereunder:

“a. First, there must be an ongoing inquiry or trial in respect of the original accused person(s); and

b. Secondly, in the course of such proceedings, evidence must have come on record to show that any person other than the original accused has committed any offence; and

c. Thirdly, the person sought to be summoned could be tried together with the original accused for such offence.”

Since the proposed accused were not named in FIR, nor was the final report submitted against them exonerating them from the charges, the Court upheld the High Court's decision directing the trial court to reconsider the summoning application while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

No Compulsion To Stay Trial For Trial Court To Decide Summoning Application After Conclusion Of Trial

The Court held that once the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, directs the trial court to reconsider a summoning application, the trial court remains empowered to decide the application even after the trial concludes, regardless of whether a stay on the trial was granted.

The Court noted that the High Court's order effectively replaced the trial court's rejection of the Section 319 application. The principle of “relation back” applies, meaning the new summoning order is deemed to have been passed at the time of the original rejection.

“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.”, the court observed.

“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.”, the court added.

Further, the Court observed:

“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. We say so because the Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gave effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected.”

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed:

“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. The combined effect of the revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second Section 319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning order dated 21.02.2024. Thus, although the summoning order in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by this Court in Maru Ram (supra) and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (supra).”

Upon reading both the Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 and Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (1969) 2 SCC 74, the Court observed:

“the order of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction relates back to and replaces the order of the Trial Court. It is of no consequence that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary as opposed to appellate jurisdiction. It is settled law that an appellate court exercises its power in the place of the original court and the order passed by such court shall have retroactive effect from the date of judgment of the Trial Court. Similarly, once the High Court, being the superior court, decides to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the purpose of rectifying any errors in the same, such order will replace the order of the Trial Court.”

Though it has been held by the Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab that the S.319 CrPC order has to be passed before the pronouncement of sentence, the Court noted that in the present case, the factual circumstances are different, since the High Court's revision order came after the trial was completed.

"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," the Court noted.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal. 

The Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps in furtherance of the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 to ensure that the appellants are produced before the court to face the trial.

Case Title: JAMIN & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anshuman, AOR Mr. Shaantanu Devansh, Adv. Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv. Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.