Person who has been discharged can be summoned again

Supreme Court: Clearing the enigma in Section 319 of the CrPC, 1973 regarding 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, the 5-judge constitutional bench of Hon’ble P. Sathasivam, CJ and Hon’ble B. S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde, JJ held that a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under the said provision, provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. The Court was of the opinion that though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took
cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. It was held that fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial - therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. The Court also held that the materials coming before the Court in course of enquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 and 398 of Cr.P.C can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2008, decided on January 10, 2014]

Print Page