Grant of relief larger than what was sought by petitioner himself, not justified

Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 9 SCC 500
Criminal Law

S. 319 - Trial against co-accused persons standing concluded - Independent trial of any other person who could have
been tried jointly under S. 319, held, not barred thereby - Hence, if joint trial would delay trial of existing accused
indefinitely, independent trials of existing accused, and, S. 319 additional accused can be directed - Any other person
appearing to be guilty of offence who could be tried together with the accused - Provision for trying together under S.
319, held, is directory - Mere fact that another person was added as co-accused at stage when trial of existing accused
already stood concluded (or nearly stood concluded) would not prevent court from proceeding against newly added
person afresh - Staying progress of trial of existing accused for purpose of trial of newly added person, if results in
prolonging trial of existing accused for indefinite period, would jeopardise such accused's right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Art. 21 of the Constitution - Hence, stay on trial of existing accused vacated so their trial could continue and be
expeditiously concluded, while appeal of person sought to be added under S. 319 CrPC thereagainst was pending,



Constitution of India
Art. 21 - Right to speedy trial - Forms part of right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 - Accused has right to fair and
expeditious trial - Court's order of stay effecting indefinite suspension of trial would be manifestly unjust and unfair -
Accused cannot be subjected to tyranny of legal process which may go on endlessly for no fault of accused himself,

Constitution of India
Art. 136 - SLP - Interim relief - Grant of relief larger than what was sought by petitioner himself, not justified - SLP
against High Court's order affirming petitioner's addition as co-accused under S. 319 CrPC by trial court - Crl. MP filed by
petitioner seeking stay of High Court's order during pendency of SLP - Supreme Court ordered stay of further steps in the
case which meant not only stay of addition of petitioner as co-accused but also stay of further proceedings before trial
court - Crl. MP filed by existing accused for vacating stay of continuation of the trial - Held, when so long as petitioner
was not tried, he as dominus litis having no objection to continuation and conclusion of trial qua other accused, granting
him a relief larger than what he prayed for not justified - Hence, clarified that stay of trial was to continue only qua
petitioner, while stay vacated qua the existing accused persons, 
Read full judgments Here

Central Bureau of Investigation 2000 (3) SCC 262, it was submitted that the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected during trial that some person, who is not arraigned as an accused, had committed an offence, and for such offence, that other person could as well be tried along with the other accused. He submitted that all the efforts of the bereaved family members of the deceased at proper investigation had failed due to the enormous influence wielded by the petitioner and the other accused persons being not available for further investigation. 60 by the Court clearly mentioned business and political rivalry as also previous case of double murder as the causes for hatching the conspiracy and carrying out the murder wherein two accused persons were still shown as involved but not identified, named or traced. It was, on that basis, submitted that the Sessions Court was perfectly justified in exercising its discretion and jurisdiction on the basis of the material already on record and this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction by re-appreciating the material and evidence appearing against the petitioner, even without the entire material being placed on record. The word 'evidence' occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 319 is used in comprehensive and broad sense which would also include the material collected by the Investigating Officer and the evidence which comes before the Court and from which the Court is satisfied that person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of the crime. It may, therefore, be said that till summons or process is issued against the accused, he has no right of audience and in that case, it cannot be said that on being satisfied on the basis of examination-in-chief, an application under Section 319 of the Code is not maintainable. Whether such power can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted? The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation, but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. 2. He, on the basis of such evidence, was satisfied that the case was required to be gone into and issued a summons. Be it noted, the Court need not be satisfied that he has committed an offence. 20. There is no rationale in fettering that power and the discretion, either by calling it extraordinary or by stating that it will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. is clearly alleged, it would be hazardous to record an opinion different from the opinion formed by the Court conducting the case. As held by the Apex Court in Michael Machado and Rajendra Singh (supra), the ultimate aim of procedural pathways is doing justice after proper trial to the accused as well as the victim.

Judgment:

D.H. Waghela, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) for the prayer to set aside the order dated 29-3-2008 below Exh. 225 of Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar whereby the petitioner is ordered to be summoned as accused person by a bailable warrant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The petition has come up for final hearing and disposal at a critical stage when, after the initial admission and ex-parte injunction against the impugned order on 3-4-2008, the matter has reached the Supreme Court and directions as under are issued on 14-11-2008 in S.L.P. (Cri.) Nos. 3911 of 2008 and 4039 of 2008:

(a) Since the Special Criminal Case is now pending before the High Court, we feel it proper to request the High Court to decide the said case within a period of four weeks from this date without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

(b) In the event, the decision has not yet been arrived at in the trial, in that case, the judgment shall not be pronounced by the trial Court for a period of four weeks from this date.

2. In the context of almost all the prosecution witnesses, numbering around 140, having been examined in the trial Court and the judgment being likely to be pronounced shortly, as stated at the Bar, the proposal for calling for records and proceedings for a comprehensive view of the facts and material on record was strongly objected; and it was at the instance of the Court that arguments for final disposal were commenced and addressed on day-to-day basis since 1-12-2008.

3. Basic and undisputed facts are that offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act came to be registered on 16-11-2005, pursuant to which charge-sheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 5 of 2007 was instituted after committal. The wife of the deceased victim of the offences moved the High Court for a direction to hand over the investigation to C.B.I. and that petition (Special Criminal Application No. 597 of 2006) was dismissed on 1-2-2007 with the direction that, if an appropriate application were made by the petitioner therein, under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the trial Court shall consider it independently without being influenced by the observations made in that petition. Even at that stage, the widow of the deceased had pointed out the facts of the present petitioner being a business rival and an ex-minister of the ruling party, while one of the main accused persons was a business partner of the present petitioner. It was also pointed out that a letter written by the deceased was recovered from the purse carried by him at the time of his death which stated that, if the deceased were killed, the present petitioner would be the person causing it as he intended to kill him. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the widow made an application Exh. 20 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit within 12 days, referring to four subsequent statements of the deceased himself which were recorded in different context without reference to the aforesaid letter which was written before one year of his death. Another affidavit dated 6-8-2007 was filed by the Investigating Officer and further affidavit of Circle Inspector was filed on 17-8-2007 to state that no evidence was found linking the present petitioner to the crime. The Sessions Court, however, made an order on 8-10-2007 below Exh. 20 and directed the police inspector to carry out further investigation and submit his report. The police inspector submitted his affidavit on 17-3-2008, inter alia, stating that the application for Narco Analysis and Brain Maping Tests of ten persons was already rejected by the Court; that the call details of mobile phones for the period immediately preceding the crime did not reveal any communication between the deceased and the present petitioner; that the brother of deceased had contested in the 2000 election against the present petitioner and the deceased was active in the campaign due to which his wife and son believed that the petitioner might have caused the death of the deceased. It is lastly stated that whether the petitioner had inspired the other accused to kill the deceased could be ascertained if Narco Analysis and Brain Maping Tests were permitted to be conducted on the ten other accused persons; but since the application therefor was rejected, a proposal for preferring an appeal was forwarded to the Legal Department. Upon a query in that regard, it was stated by learned A.P.P. before this Court that the Government did not propose to file an appeal pursuant to the said proposal.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the fag-end of the trial when not less than 134 witnesses were already examined, the application Exh. 225 came to be filed by the son of deceased on 7-3-2008 for joining the petitioner as an accused person in exercise of the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., even as the main and interested witnesses had also not made any definite statement before the Court or investigating agency about involvement of the petitioner in the offences being tried. It was submitted that a person cannot be arraigned as an accused person merely on the basis of a suspicion or for making a fishing inquiry or on the basis of allegations of biased or imperfect investigation. Relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Guriya v. State of Bihar : 2007 (8) SCC 224, it was submitted that a person can be added as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence. The discretion of the Court must be exercised judiciously and it being an extraordinary power, it should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist. The word 'evidence' in Section 319 contemplates evidence of witnesses given in Court. Relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Palanisamy Gounder v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2005 (12) SCC 327 and Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation : 2000 (3) SCC 262, it was submitted that the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected during trial that some person, who is not arraigned as an accused, had committed an offence, and for such offence, that other person could as well be tried along with the other accused. The discretionary power conferred upon the Court should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. The stage at which trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, as also the time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence have to be taken into account. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number, the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by exercise of the power under Section 319 are worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly-brought accused ending in his conviction, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.

5. As against the above facts and submissions of learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.V. Raju, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati, appearing for the original applicant and respondent No. 2 herein, the son of deceased, that the application Exh. 225 was and could have been submitted only after exhibition in evidence of the letter kept in his purse by the deceased and its genuineness being proved by the evidence of hand-writing expert. He submitted that all the efforts of the bereaved family members of the deceased at proper investigation had failed due to the enormous influence wielded by the petitioner and the other accused persons being not available for further investigation. He pointed out from the charge-sheet and the charge framed by the Court that a systematic conspiracy was hatched and preparations made for killing the deceased; and even arrangements for the accused to escape after the event and for burning of a car were made, while the accused persons had remained in touch with each other on mobile phones. While the deceased was killed at around 12-30 in the night between 15-11-2005 and 16-11-2005, one of the main accused had the longest telephonic talk by an incoming call from the petitioner at 1-13 p.m. on 15-11-2005, according to the record of mobile phone of one of the main accused (Exh. 217). Again, that accused had talked to the petitioner in the evening at 6-11 p.m. on 15-11-2005, and thereafter, they had talked on the mobile phone on 17/18-11-2005 17/18-11-2005 . He also pointed out from the letter dated 4-1-2006 of Tata Chemicals Ltd. (Exh. 176) that the firm of the deceased and the firm of the petitioner were both operating as limestone contractors supplying huge quantities of limestone wherein the rates of the firm of the deceased were lower and more competitive. He further submitted that the charge framed at Exh. 60 by the Court clearly mentioned business and political rivalry as also previous case of double murder as the causes for hatching the conspiracy and carrying out the murder wherein two accused persons were still shown as involved but not identified, named or traced. Learned Counsel also alleged that the other accused persons had business or family relations with the petitioner. It was, on that basis, submitted that the Sessions Court was perfectly justified in exercising its discretion and jurisdiction on the basis of the material already on record and this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction by re-appreciating the material and evidence appearing against the petitioner, even without the entire material being placed on record.

6. Relying upon judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy : 2007 (4) SCC 773, the following observations were pointed out:

If the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or supervising officer is to be treated as determinative, then the very purpose of Section 319 of the Code would be frustrated.

The following observations in the recent decision dated 7-11-2008 of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750 and 1751 of 2008 were emphasized:

54. It is thus difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the term 'evidence' used in Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code would mean evidence which is tested by cross-examination. The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused. There is no question of cross-examining the witness prior to adding such person as accused. Section does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person and giving him an opportunity of cross-examining the witness who has deposed against him, and thereafter, deciding whether such person should or should not be added as accused. The word 'evidence' occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 319 is used in comprehensive and broad sense which would also include the material collected by the Investigating Officer and the evidence which comes before the Court and from which the Court is satisfied that person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of the crime.

58. We may only observe that it is settled law that at the stage of issuing summons or process, a Court has to see whether there is prima facie case against the person sought to be summoned or against whom process is sought to be issued. At that stage, there is no question of giving an opportunity of hearing to such person. The entire scheme of the Code is that an accused person does not come into picture at all till process is issued. As held by this Court in several cases including a leading decision in Nagavva v. Veeranna : 1976 (3) SCC 736, the accused at pre-process stage has no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. It may, therefore, be said that till summons or process is issued against the accused, he has no right of audience and in that case, it cannot be said that on being satisfied on the basis of examination-in-chief, an application under Section 319 of the Code is not maintainable.

59. ...

60. ...The proceedings against the added accused shall be commenced afresh and witnesses will be reheard. Their evidence, prior to addition of the accused cannot be used against the accused who was not there earlier. The question of prejudice, hence, does not arise at all.

61. ...

62. In our considered opinion, however, in the light of conflicting decisions of Co-ordinate Benches (both of two Hon'ble Judges), it would be appropriate if we refer the matter to a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges.

63 to 69 ...

70. The report contemplated by Section 173 should contain the information required by the said provision. The Investigating Officer is not expected to record findings of fact nor to give clean chit by exercising power of a Court or judicial authority. In the instant case, however, the Superintendent of Police not only refers to investigation made by him and the statements recorded in the course of investigation but records a 'finding' that the statements were 'correct'. Vijay Preet Singh was not present at the place of offence when the incident took place but reached after the occurrence was over. Thereafter, police had arrested him. Likewise, Jagtar Singh was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence.

71 to 78 ...

79. We, therefore, refer the following two questions for the consideration of three Hon'ble Judges:

(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?

(Underlines added)

It was pointed out from judgment of the Apex Court in Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab : 1979 (1) SCC 345 that:

9. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurring in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation, but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.

(Underlines added)

Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab 2008 (9) SCC 140 was relied upon for the following observations:

21. Sometimes a Magistrate while hearing a case against one or more accused finds from the evidence that some person other than the accused before him is also involved in that very offence. It is only proper that a Magistrate should have power to summon by joining such person as an accused in the case. The primary object underlying Section 319 is that the whole case against all the accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously. Justice and convenience both require that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same case and in the same manner as against the original-accused. The power must be regarded and conceded as incidental and ancillary to the main power to take cognizance as part of normal process in the administration of criminal justice.

23. In the instant case, an F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant in August, 1986. But it was during the course of trial that it came to light that signatures of respondent No. 2 were also taken and were sent for examination and a report was received showing that the signatures on the basis of which amount was withdrawn tallied with the signatures of respondent No. 2. The said report, however, was not filed by the prosecution. It was in these circumstances that the appellant made applications in 1994 and in 1996 under Section 319 of the Code requesting the learned Magistrate to join respondent No. 2 as accused and to summon him.

58. In our considered opinion, the Revisional Court was not justified in entering into correctness or otherwise of the evidence at the stage of issuance of summons to respondent No. 2. Admittedly, the Judicial Magistrate had considered a limited question whether on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses, prima facie offence had been made out against respondent No. 2. He, on the basis of such evidence, was satisfied that the case was required to be gone into and issued a summons. To us, the Revisional Court was not right in interfering with that order. Hence, even on that ground, the order was not in accordance with law.

62. It was also urged that no applications by the appellant could have been entertained by the trial Court after about 8 to 10 years from the date of filing of F.I.R. Now, an application under Section 319 of the Code can only be made to a Court and the Court may exercise the power under the said Section if it appears from evidence that any person other than the accused had also committed an offence for which he can be tried together with the accused. It was during the course of prosecution evidence that he came to know that signatures of respondent No. 2 were sent for examination, some report was received by the prosecution which was not produced in Court and on the basis of such evidence, the case was made out against respondent No. 2. If in these circumstances, applications were made and the prayer was granted, we see no infirmity therein.

(Underlines added)

Following observations of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. 2007 (7) SCC 378 were also relied upon:

16. ...As I see it, the words are plain and the meaning clear. When in the course of the enquiry or trial, it appears to the Court from the evidence that a person, not arrayed as an accused, appears to have committed any offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against that person. Surely, it must appear to the Court from the evidence that someone not arrayed as an accused, appears to have committed an offence. Be it noted, the Court need not be satisfied that he has committed an offence. It need only appear to it that he has committed an offence. In other words, from the evidence it need only appear to it that some one else has committed an offence, to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. Even then, it has a discretion not to proceed, since the expression used is 'may' and not 'shall'. The Legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to the trial Court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction under this Section. The expression 'appears' indicates an application of mind by the Court to the evidence that has come before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 of the Code or not. With great respect, I see no reason to describe the power as an extraordinary power or to confine the exercise of it only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against any other person against whom action has not been taken. After all, the Section only gives power to the Court to ensure that all those apparently involved in the commission of an offence are tried together and none left out. I see no reason to curtail this power of the Court to do justice to the victim and to the society. It appears to me that it is left to the judicial discretion of the Court, judicially trained, to decide to proceed or not to proceed against a person in terms of Section 319 of the Code.

20. The power under Section 319 of the Code is conferred on the Court to ensure that justice is done to the society by bringing to book all those guilty of an offence. One of the aims and purposes of the Criminal Justice System is to maintain social order. It is necessary in that context to ensure that no one who appears to be guilty escapes a proper trial in relation to that guilt. There is also a duty to render justice to the victim of the offence. It is in recognition of this that the Code has specifically conferred a power in the Court to proceed against others not arrayed as accused in the circumstances set out by this Section. It is a salutary power enabling the discharge of a Court's obligation to the society to bring to book all those guilty of a crime.

20. ...There is no rationale in fettering that power and the discretion, either by calling it extraordinary or by stating that it will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. It is intended to be used when the occasion envisaged by the Section arises.

(Underlines added)

7. In view of the material placed before the Court, selected by the parties, and in absence of a comprehensive and panoramic view of the entire evidence led before the Court in respect of the heinous crime wherein Section 120B of I.P.C. is clearly alleged, it would be hazardous to record an opinion different from the opinion formed by the Court conducting the case. It is emphasized in the most recent judgment dated 7-11-2008 of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) Criminal Appeal No. 1750-1751 of 2008, after reference to most of the previous judgments on the issue and reiterating the ratio in Bholu Ram (supra), that the primary object underlying Section 319 is that the whole case against all the accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously. Justice and convenience both require that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same case and in the same manner as against the original-accused. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as adumbrated hereinabove and in view of the further guidelines called for by the recent referring judgment, it would be improper to interfere with the impugned order, particularly when even the State and the prosecution has supported the application at Exh. 225 below which the impugned order was made.

8. Looking at the infirmities and missing links in the evidence as pointed out for the petitioner, from another angle, it would appear that, in the nature of things, there may not be complete and clinching evidence during the trial against the person who is not arraigned as an accused person; simply because such evidence would be irrelevant or inadmissible for prosecution of the persons who are already arraigned. Therefore, it may be unrealistic to always expect clinching or conclusive evidence of involvement of a non-accused person when other accused persons are being tried. Consequently, sufficient evidence for securing conviction of a person to be arraigned by exercising the powers under Section 319 can normally not be expected to be on the record of trial. Reading of the main provisions of Section 319 in harmony with Sub-section (4) thereof indicates a scheme in which a newly arraigned accused person is supposed to have a fresh trial in respect of himself which would entail introduction of fresh and new relevant evidence in respect of him and full opportunity to him to defend himself. As held by the Apex Court in Michael Machado and Rajendra Singh (supra), the ultimate aim of procedural pathways is doing justice after proper trial to the accused as well as the victim.

9. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Kodekar also submitted that the Sessions Court has taken cognizance of the offences, which include offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C., and it is cognizance of offences and not complaint against particular accused persons and hence the incidental and ancillary power and discretion of arraigning the accused must be conceded to the Court; and question of sufficiency or quality of the material or evidence against an accused cannot arise at the stage of issuing process. He further submitted that the Court can always take a view of the material and evidence which may be different from the view taken by the Investigating Officer.

10. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary and limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged and interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs.

Print Page