Summary
The Court held that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC, who had not previously been discharged, has no right to a separate hearing before being added as an accused and cannot seek discharge under Section 227. The higher evidentiary threshold for summoning, challenge before a superior court and fresh-trial safeguards protect the person’s rights. The challenge to summoning was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a person must be heard before being added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
- Whether a person so added can seek discharge under Section 227, and whether Jogendra Yadav required reconsideration.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The provision permits proceeding against a person on sufficiently strong evidence without a preliminary hearing, subject to distinct safeguards for a person previously discharged and a fresh proceeding with witnesses reheard. (¶¶ 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34)
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Discharge cannot be used to undo a Section 319 order founded on the higher evidentiary satisfaction arising during trial. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24, 25, 31)
Held
- Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence and a satisfaction greater than the prima facie threshold at charge framing, but short of the satisfaction for conviction. Its object is to bring the person into trial, not to determine guilt at that stage. (¶¶ 22, 27)
- For a person not previously discharged, no preliminary inquiry or hearing is required before addition under Section 319. Importing a separate trial within the trial would defeat the provision’s purpose; natural justice is afforded through the ensuing trial and available legal remedies. (¶¶ 23, 25, 32, 33, 34)
- A person previously discharged stands differently: the inquiry and statutory requirements applicable to reopening that position must be observed. The ruling dispensing with prior hearing cannot erase that distinction. (¶¶ 22, 23, 32)
- A person summoned under Section 319 cannot seek Section 227 discharge to reverse the summoning decision. The person may challenge an illegal or improper summons before a superior court and has trial rights to cross-examine witnesses and lead defence evidence. (¶¶ 24, 25, 31, 32)
- Jogendra Yadav’s statement that its added accused had been heard described that case’s facts, rather than imposing a mandatory pre-summoning hearing in every case. No reconsideration of that decision was required, and the appellants’ challenge failed. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35)
Result
Appeal dismissed; summoning challenge rejected. Appellants’ stated intention to appear before the Sessions Court on 31 July 2023 and seek remedies available in law recorded; pending applications disposed of.