Decided on May 04,2012

Parvez And Anr. Appellant


- (1.) The revisionists were named in the first information report. However, upon investigation, the revisionists were not chargesheeted. During the trial PW1, namely, the complainant Asraf Ali was examined in chief who reiterated the contents of the first information report and submitted that the revisionists were involved in the commission of the crime. The trial court, considering the fact that the revisionists were named in the first information report which was corroborated by the statement of PW1 Asraf Ali held that there is a prima-facie involvement of the revisionists and, consequently, issued summons to the revisionists u/S 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionists, being aggrieved by the said summoning order, has filed the present criminal revision u/S 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. An interim order dated 19th August, 2008 was passed staying the operation of the order dated 1 st August, 2008. As a result of the interim order, the trial against the revisionists could not proceed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Court below has committed a manifest error in summoning the revisionists for standing trial as an additional accused although they were found to be innocent during the investigation. The learned counsel submitted 2 that the power exercised u/S 319 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which is required to be exercised sparingly and upon compelling reasons for taking cognizance. The learned counsel submitted that there was no compelling reason existing which required the Court below to exercise its extraordinary power in summoning the revisionists. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009 16 SCC 46.
(3.) The power u/S 319 Cr.P.C of the Court is an extraordinary power and is required to be exercised sparingly for compelling reasons. The provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. on a plain reading clearly indicates that such extraordinary case has been made out for issuing summons for standing trial. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh has held that before an additional accused could be summoned for standing trial, the nature of evidence should be such which should make out a ground for exercise of such extraordinary power u/S 319 Cr.P.C.. The material brought before the Court must also be such which would satisfy the Court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction is exercised sparingly. A note of caution has to be exercised by the Court that the power should not be exercised merely because one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other persons. Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to serve the ingredients of the provision. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. The evidence brought before the trial court must be convincing to enable the Court to exercise the extraordinary power u/S 319 Cr.P.C. Mere existence of a prima-facie case may not serve the purpose. Whereas the test of the prima-facie case may be sufficient for taking 3 cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion which has to be considered with the entire material on record to form an opinion that such evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.