RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 10,2014
RAJENDRA SHARMA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOMER SIRDA V. QUEEN -EMPRESS [REFERRED TO]SRIRAMULU V. VEERASALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
BRINDABAN DAS AND ORS. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DAGDU GOVINDSHET WANI V. PUNJA VEDU WANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN VS. SHANMUGHA VILAS CASHEWNUT FACTORY QUILON [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY:RAM NARESH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
PYARE LAL BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN MOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHA VS. NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN BUM LIMITED VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBANS DUBEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PEDDA NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAT PAUL VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. L MUNISWAMY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAMESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL BHANJI MITHANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL [REFERRED TO]
JOOINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
V C SHUKLA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. RAM KISHAN ROHTAGT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LAKSHMI BRAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION INDIAN FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS VS. LAXMAN KUMAR:SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS RAMALINGESWARA OIL MILL JAVA KRISHNA OIL MILLS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA:DILIP NATHUMAL [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS CONFEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA VS. JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KISHUN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
P KASILINGAM VS. P S G COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
OMKAR NAMDEO JADHAO VS. SECOND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BULDANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAJOR GENERAL MADAN LAL YADAV [RETD ] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE" A REGISTERED SOCIETY DIRECTOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SULTANA BEGUM VS. PREM CHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. PRICE WATERHOUSE [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL MACHADO VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MOHAN LAL SONI [REFERRED TO]
SURESH ALIAS PAPPU BHUDHARMAL KALANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SWIL LIMITED VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DILAWAR BALU KURANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
FEROZE N DOTIVALA VS. P M WADHWANI [REFERRED TO]
AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
MOLY VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
LOK RAM VS. NIHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAFI VS. MOHD RAFIQ [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD WAKF LABORATORIES VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMR [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
GURIYA ALIAS TABASSUM TAUQUIR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. SURJI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
PONDS INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [REFERRED TO]
SARABJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. RAM NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN KUMAR GOGOI VS. ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI [REFERRED TO]
ELACHURI VENKATACHINNAYYA AND THREE ORS VS. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
ROHITASH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
ANJU CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PALANISAMY GOUNDER VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This reference before us arises out of a Vibhakar Mishra, Ajay Garg, Amit Kishor Sinha, Sunil Kr Verma, Abhisth Kumar, Kamladeep Gulati, Aniruddha P Mayee, Charudatta Mahindrakar, Rucha A Mayee, Pratibha Jain, Kaushal Yadav, Anurag Dubey, Meenesh Dubey, D P Pande, Rajesh Pandey, Anu Sawhney, Upasana D Tiwari, S R Setia, Anshuman Ashok, Allanki Ramesh, C S N Mohan Rao, Rajesh Kumar, Shilpi Gupta, G Madhavi, K V Mohan, Anku variety of views having been expressed by this Court and several High Courts of the country on the scope and extent of the powers of the courts under the criminal justice system to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial as contemplated under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). The initial reference was made by a two-Judge Bench vide order dated 7.11.2008 in the leading case of Hardeep Singh (Crl. Appeal No. 1750 of 2008) where noticing the conflict between the judgments in the case of Rakesh v. State of Haryana, 2001 AIR(SC) 2521 and a two-Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr., 2007 AIR(SC) 1899 a doubt was expressed about the correctness of the view in the case of Mohd. Shafi . The doubts as categorised in paragraphs 75 and 78 of the reference order led to the framing of two questions by the said Bench which are reproduced hereunder:
"(1) When the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of addition of accused can be exercised by a Court Whether application under Section 319 is not maintainable unless the cross-examination of the witness is complete
(2) What is the test and what are the guidelines of exercising power under Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code Whether such power can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted
(2.)The reference was desired to be resolved by a three Judge Bench whereafter the same came up for consideration and vide order dated 8.12.2011, the Court opined that in view of the reference made in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2004 13 SCC 9, the issues involved being identical in nature, the same should be resolved by a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five Judges. The Bench felt that since a three-Judge Bench has already referred the matter of Dharam Pal to a Constitution Bench, then in that event it would be appropriate that such overlapping issues should also be resolved by a Bench of similar strength.
(3.)Reference made in the case of Dharam Pal came to be answered in relation to the power of a Court of Sessions to invoke Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of committal of the case to a Court of Sessions. The said reference was answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 3018 [hereinafter called 'Dharam Pal (CB)'], wherein it was held that a Court of Sessions can with the aid of Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure proceed to array any other person and summon him for being tried even if the provisions of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure could not be pressed in service at the stage of committal.
"(1) When the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of addition of accused can be exercised by a Court Whether application under Section 319 is not maintainable unless the cross-examination of the witness is complete
(2) What is the test and what are the guidelines of exercising power under Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code Whether such power can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted
(2.)The reference was desired to be resolved by a three Judge Bench whereafter the same came up for consideration and vide order dated 8.12.2011, the Court opined that in view of the reference made in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2004 13 SCC 9, the issues involved being identical in nature, the same should be resolved by a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five Judges. The Bench felt that since a three-Judge Bench has already referred the matter of Dharam Pal to a Constitution Bench, then in that event it would be appropriate that such overlapping issues should also be resolved by a Bench of similar strength.
(3.)Reference made in the case of Dharam Pal came to be answered in relation to the power of a Court of Sessions to invoke Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of committal of the case to a Court of Sessions. The said reference was answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 3018 [hereinafter called 'Dharam Pal (CB)'], wherein it was held that a Court of Sessions can with the aid of Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure proceed to array any other person and summon him for being tried even if the provisions of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure could not be pressed in service at the stage of committal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.