JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

584

Message
show

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab

This case deals with the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

Petitioners Arguments
The Appellants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 which held that power under Section 319(1) of CrPC can be exercised at any time after the filing of the chargesheet and before the pronouncement of the judgment. In the present case, the summoning order passed after the order of conviction is in breach of the dicta in Hardeep Singh as it was passed simultaneously with the order of conviction of other accused. It is both a procedural and a substantial violation of law. As the matter is reserved for judgment, the stage for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC ends and the court becomes functus officio. In this case, the court has already considered the evidence and the same evidence would be appreciated while trying the Appellants and the inclusion of such evidence vitiates the principles of fair trial.
Responders Arguments
Even if it is assumed that the summoning order was passed subsequent to the conviction order, the application was within the prescribed time limit under Section 319 of CrPC. Further, the application under Section 319, CrPC is separate from the trial. The summoning order under Section 319 was passed on the same day, simultaneously, along with the final judgment convicting the other accused. Therefore, there is no procedural irregularity committed. The trial had been bifurcated and was pending in respect of the other absconding accused, which would sustain the exercise of power under Section 319. Procedural laws must be liberally construed to render justice. Moreover, assuming but not admitting that an irregularity in the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC was committed by the Trial Court, the same would not vitiate the proceedings. The finding of the Trial Court cannot be reversed under Section 465 , CrPC as the appellant has not made out a case of failure of justice.
Last Listed On
2022-12-05
Start Date
2019-09-05
End Date
2022-12-05
Card Stage Date
2022-12-05
Review Petition No
Crl.A. No. 885/2019
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Disposal Time
3 years, 3 months

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

The present case deals with the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. In the instant case, an FIR was registered on 05-03-2015 against 11 accused for offences 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, 1959 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 . The first and second charge sheets filed by the police did not name the accused-­appellants. 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 accused­-appellants herein. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional five accused (including the present appellants) by placing reliance on statements of PW­4, PW­5 (recalled witnesses) and PW­13. On 31-10-2017, the Sessions Court first pronounced the judgment convicting 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 the accused-­appellants under Section 319 of CrPC. Aggrieved by the summoning by the Sessions Court, the accused-appellants filed separate Criminal Revision Petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This was dismissed by the High Court and the summoning of the accused-appellants upheld. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants approached the Supreme Court. A division bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench and eventually a three-judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.

Does the trial court have the power under Section 319 of CrPC, 1973 for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date, before pronouncing the summoning order? Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC, 1973 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? What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC, 1973?

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

While dealing with this case, the Supreme Court observed that the objectives of Section 319 , CrPC are twofold. First, it is the courts’ duty to bring home the guilt of all accused and render justice. Second, it is the duty of the state to take every criminal prosecution to its logical end. Section 319 is an enabling provision where the investigating agency had failed to array any person as an accused. It allows the court to call such a person to face trial. Section 319(4) provides that proceedings with respect to the summoned individual may be de novo or a joint trial may be held. Further, the Hardeep Singh case would not apply to the instant case since it did not deal with summoning orders pronounced after the passing of the judgment. Further, it treats Section 319 in an isolated manner and does not consider the spirit and mandate of the CrPC. Section 465 of the CrPC was introduced to provide a balanced mechanism under the criminal justice system and stop the courts from getting into hyper technicalities and committing serious violations. The Hardeep Singh case did not consider this principle. The Apex Court also observed that the power under Section 319 is extraordinary in nature and trial courts must be cautious while summoning accused to avoid complexities and ensure a fair trial. Having regards to competing principles involved in this case, namely ‘an order of court cannot prejudice anyone’ and strict interpretation of Section 319, the Supreme Court felt that there was a requirement for the Apex Court to provide clarification on the aforesaid aspects. Having considered the matter at length, the three-judge bench was of the view that the opinion expressed in Hardeep Singh's case, a constitution bench judgment, needed further enunciation in light of the circumstances occurring in this case. Therefore, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench.

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92

Joga Singh v. State of Punjab

Date Of Institution Start
2017-11-22
Case No
Crl.A. No. 886/2019

Understanding The Complexity Of Section 319 Of CrPC

Understanding The Complexity Of Section 319 Of CrPC
Source Of Info
Live Law
Date Of Fr
2020-07-14