In a recent legal case, the court embarked on a detailed examination of the power vested under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing its discretionary and sparing use. The judgment highlights the importance of strong evidence and the need for a judicious exercise of this exceptional authority, setting a significant precedent for future legal proceedings.
Facts
- The investigation officer expunged the names of Bittoo and Jyoti, the appellants, from the list of accused in the chargesheet.
- An FIR was registered against the appellants under various sections of the IPC, along with six other accused.
- Informant filed Criminal Revision before the High Court against the order of the Session Judge.
- Informant implicated all accused, including the appellants, in his statement during the trial but did not assign a specific role to the appellants.
- Appellants filed a revision before the High Court against the order summoning them, but the police submitted a chargesheet exonerating the appellants.
- The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the appellants against the order dated 17.08.2019.
- The Revision was filed on 23.09.2019 but the order passed by the Court on 18.09.2019 was not brought on record, leading to concealment of information.
- The High Court allowed the Revision and directed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to be considered afresh.
- The matter was remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, for reconsideration of the application in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in ‘Rajesh’ case.
Also Read: Analysis of Seniority Determination in Armed Forces Personnel Case
Analysis
- The court is required to refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC if satisfaction is not achieved.
- The subsequent proceedings cannot shield the validity of the earlier order dated 17.08.2019.
- The exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence, not merely a casual opinion.
- The High Court’s view that no challenge to the order summoning the revisionists under Section 319 of CrPC can be simultaneous with another order is incorrect.
- Non-bailable warrants are issued against accused Jyoti and Bittu for their absence despite being served.
- The correctness of the order dated 17.08.2019 should be evaluated independently of subsequent proceedings.
- Bail bonds executed by guarantors will be forfeited for not producing accused Bittu and Jyoti before the court.
- The Two-Judge Bench of the Court reiterated the ratio in the case of Rajesh versus State of Haryana as relied upon by the High Court.
- The High Court rejected the revision based on the reasoning given in the Constitution Bench’s decision in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92.
- The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was discussed, emphasizing its need for sparing exercise.
- Power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly.
- It should only be exercised in cases where the circumstances warrant its use.
- The High Court did not examine the correctness of the order dated 17.08.2019 summoning the appellants under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
- The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision based on a subsequent fact, the order dated 18.09.2019, which issued notice under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
- The judgment of the High Court dated 27.09.2019 is unsustainable and should be set aside.
Also Read: Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Conviction
Decision
- Order dated 05.09.2019 mentioned the appearance of accused Sandeep being dispensed through his counsel.
- Summon was duly served on accused Jyoti and Bittu.
- A bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- was issued against Jyoti and Bittu for 18.09.2019.
- The High Court is directed to consider the Criminal Revision of the appellants afresh in accordance with the law.
- The High Court’s view is that no simultaneous challenge to the order summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be tenable until the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in proceedings at the behest of revisionist subsists.
Also Read: Land Compensation Dispute Under Kerala Forest Act
Case Title: AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (2021 INSC 48)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000088-000088 / 2021
