Judges: P. Sathasivam, C.J. and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Facts:

This reference arises out of a variety of views having been expressed by the Supreme 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 (Cr.P.C.). The initial reference was made by a two-Judge Bench vide order dated 7.11.2008 in the case of Hardeep Singh where noticing the conflict between the judgments in the case of Rakesh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0390/2001 and a two-Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. MANU/SC/7294/2007, a doubt was expressed about the correctness of the view in the case of Mohd. Shafi.

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. MANU/SC/1191/2004, 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 (Supra) 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.

Reference made in the case of Dharam Pal (Supra) 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. MANU/SC/0720/2013, 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.

Thus, after the reference was made by a three-Judge Bench in the present case, the powers so far as the Court of Sessions is concerned, to invoke Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of committal, stood answered finally in the aforesaid background.

Issues:

(i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?

(ii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?

(iii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

(iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?

(v) Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?

Law:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

Analysis:

Stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised

(i) The stage of inquiry commences, insofar as the court is concerned, with the filing of the charge-sheet and the consideration of the material collected by the prosecution, that is mentioned in the charge-sheet for the purpose of trying the accused.

(ii) Trial is distinct from an inquiry and must necessarily succeed it. The purpose of the trial is to fasten the responsibility upon a person on the basis of facts presented and evidence led in this behalf.

(iii) As 'trial' means determination of issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the court informs him of the same, the 'trial' commences only on charges being framed. Thus, it is not correct to say that trial commences on cognizance being taken.

(iv) Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly envisage inquiry before the actual commencement of the trial, and is an act conducted under Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate or the court. The word 'inquiry' is, therefore, not any inquiry relating to the investigation of the case by the investigating agency but is an inquiry after the case is brought to the notice of the court on the filing of the charge-sheet. The court can thereafter proceed to make inquiries and it is for this reason that an inquiry has been given to mean something other than the actual trial.

(v) Even the word "course" occurring in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, clearly indicates that the power can be exercised only during the period when the inquiry has been commenced and is going on or the trial which has commenced and is going on. It covers the entire wide range of the process of the pre-trial and the trial stage. The word "course" therefore, allows the court to invoke this power to proceed against any person from the initial stage of inquiry upto the stage of the conclusion of the trial. The court does not become functus officio even if cognizance is taken so far as it is looking into the material qua any other person who is not an accused.

(vi) Since after the filing of the charge-sheet, the court reaches the stage of inquiry and as soon as the court frames the charges, the trial commences, and therefore, the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Section 207/208 Code of Criminal Procedure, committal etc., which is only a pre-trial stage, intended to put the process into motion.

(vii) It is thus aptly clear that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised.

(viii) Further, the stage of inquiry does not contemplate any evidence in its strict legal sense, nor the legislature could have contemplated this inasmuch as the stage for evidence has not yet arrived. The only material that the court has before it is the material collected by the prosecution and the court at this stage prima facie can apply its mind to find out as to whether a person, who can be an accused, has been erroneously omitted from being arraigned or has been deliberately excluded by the prosecuting agencies.

(ix) Accordingly, the court can exercise the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence and also in some exceptional circumstances.

"Evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure - Comprehensive sense to include the evidence collected during investigation or limited to the evidence recorded during trial

(i) Ordinarily, it is only after the charges are framed that the stage of recording of evidence is reached. A bare perusal of Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure would show that the legislature has used the terms "record of the case" and the "documents submitted therewith". It is in this context that the word 'evidence' as appearing in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be read and understood. The material collected at the stage of investigation can at best be used for a limited purpose as provided under Section 157 of the Evidence Act i.e. to corroborate or contradict the statements of the witnesses recorded before the court. Therefore, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, the use of word 'evidence' means material that has come before the court during an inquiry or trial by it and not otherwise. If from the evidence led in the trial the court is of the opinion that a person not accused before it has also committed the offence, it may summon such person under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(ii) With respect to documentary evidence, it is sufficient that a document is required to be produced and proved according to law to be called evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible, is a matter of trial.

(iii) It is, therefore, clear that the word "evidence" in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the Court to decide whether power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during investigation.

(iv) Further, the inquiry by the court is neither attributable to the investigation nor the prosecution, but by the court itself for collecting information to draw back a curtain that hides something material. It is the duty of the court to do so and therefore the power to perform this duty is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(v) An inquiry can be conducted by the magistrate or court at any stage during the proceedings before the court. This power is preserved with the court and has to be read and understood accordingly. The outcome of any such exercise should not be an impediment in the speedy trial of the case. Though the facts so received by the magistrate or the court may not be evidence, yet it is some material that makes things clear and unfolds concealed or deliberately suppressed material that may facilitate the trial. In the context of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure it is an information of complicity. Such material therefore, can be used even though not an evidence in stricto sensuo, but an information on record collected by the court during inquiry itself, as a prima facie satisfaction for exercising the powers as presently involved.

(vi) This pre-trial stage is a stage where no adjudication on the evidence of the offences involved takes place and therefore, after the material alongwith the charge-sheet has been brought before the court, the same can be inquired into in order to effectively proceed with framing of charges. After the charges are framed, the prosecution is asked to lead evidence and till that is done, there is no evidence available in the strict legal sense of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The actual trial of the offence by bringing the accused before the court has still not begun. What is available is the material that has been submitted before the court along with the charge-sheet. In such situation, the court only has the preparatory material that has been placed before the court for its consideration in order to proceed with the trial by framing of charges.

(vii)It is, therefore, not any material that can be utilised, rather it is that material after cognizance is taken by a court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, that the court can utilize or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court, who may be on the basis of such material, treated to be an accomplice in the commission of the offence.

(viii) The word "evidence" therefore has to be understood in its wider sense both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry, as used under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court, therefore, should be understood to have the power to proceed against any person after summoning him on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. The duty and obligation of the court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers cautiously on such material after evidence has been led during trial.

(ix) Thus, apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. The 'evidence' is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial.

'Evidence' in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure - As arising in Examination-in-Chief or also together with Cross Examination

(i) The evidence as understood under Section 3 of the Evidence Act is the statement of the witnesses that are recorded during trial and the documentary evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act, which also includes the document and material evidence in the Evidence Act. Such evidence begins with the statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, is evidence which includes the statement during examination-in-chief.

(ii) Once examination-in-chief is conducted, the statement becomes part of the record. It is evidence as per law and in the true sense, for at best, it may be rebuttable. An evidence being rebutted or controverted becomes a matter of consideration, relevance and belief, which is the stage of judgment by the court. Yet it is evidence and it is material on the basis whereof the court can come to a prima facie opinion as to complicity of some other person who may be connected with the offence.

(iii) Even on the basis of Examination-in-Chief, the Court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfied that the evidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. In fact, Examination-in-Chief untested by Cross Examination, undoubtedly in itself, is an evidence.

(iv) Further, there is no logic behind waiting till the cross-examination of the witness is over. It is to be kept in mind that at the time of exercise of power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, the person sought to be arraigned as an accused, is in no way participating in the trial. Even if the cross-examination is to be taken into consideration, the person sought to be arraigned as an accused cannot cross examine the witness(s) prior to passing of an order under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, as such a procedure is not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, invariably the State would not oppose or object to naming of more persons as an accused as it would only help the prosecution in completing the chain of evidence, unless the witness(s) is obliterating the role of persons already facing trial. More so, Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure enables the court to record evidence in absence of the accused in the circumstances mentioned therein.

(v) Thus, Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination in chief and court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence.

Degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure

(i) Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of offence, though not an accused before the court. The word "appear" means "clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved". It imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof.

(ii) At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter.

(iii) Power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

(iv) Thus, though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.

Situations in which power under section 319 of Cr.PC can be exercised - Not named in FIR; Named in the FIR but not chargesheeted or has been discharged

(i) Power under Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of revisional power which can be exercised only by the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as the case may be. According to Section 300(5) Code of Criminal Procedure, a person discharged under Section 258 Code of Criminal Procedure shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate. Further, Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make an inquiry into the case against any person who has already been discharged. Both these provisions contemplate an inquiry to be conducted before any person, who has already been discharged, is asked to again face trial if some evidence appears against him.

(ii) Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can also be invoked at the stage of inquiry. No reason as to why inquiry as contemplated by Section 300(5) Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be an inquiry under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, a person discharged can also be arraigned again as an accused but only after an inquiry as contemplated by Sections 300(5) and 398 Code of Criminal Procedure. If during or after such inquiry, there appears to be an evidence against such person, power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. The word 'trial' under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure would be eclipsed by virtue of above provisions and the same cannot be invoked so far as a person discharged is concerned,but no more.

(iii) Thus, it is evident that power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in the Column 2 of the Charge-Sheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or a person who has been discharged. However, concerning a person who has been discharged, no proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:

(i) The word 'evidence' in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.

(ii) Considering the fact that under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Code of Criminal Procedure the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.

(iii) Though under Section 319(4)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. 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.

(iv) A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.

(v) The matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal in accordance with law explained hereinabove.

Important Precedents:

(i) Rakesh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0390/2001

(ii) Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. MANU/SC/7294/2007

(iii) Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. MANU/SC/1191/2004