Legal Maestros

Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court said that it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the counsel to assert that the Petitioner could have been summoned as an accused only during the course of trial under the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. “Section 319 CrPC stands absolutely on a different footing. … The matter may equally be examined from one another angle. For a moment one may leave the procedural provisions altogether apart. On larger principle, one can see no adequate reason to fetter and shackle the power of a superior court like that of the Court of Session from summoning a person as an additional accused to stand trial when, on the materials before it, it is satisfied that there exists a conclusive or, in any case, a prima facie case against him”, it added. The Court, therefore, summarising the following points of conclusion – (i) Both under Sections 209 and 193 respectively of CrPC commitment is of, the ‘case’ and not of the ‘accused’ as distinguished from Section193(3) and Section 207A respectively of the old Code where commitment was of the ‘accused’ and not the ‘case’. (ii) Section 319(4)(b) enacts a deeming provision in that behalf dispensing with the formal committal order by providing that the person added will be deemed to have been an accused even when cognizance was taken first. (iii) Once the Court takes cognizance of the offence (not of the offender), it becomes the Court’s duty to find out the real offenders and if it comes to the conclusion that besides the persons put up for trial by the police some others are also involved in the commission of the crime, it is the Court’s duty to summon them to stand trial along with those already named, since summoning them would only be part of the process of taking cognizance. Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP, upheld the High Court’s Order, directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within 6 months, and directed the Registry to circulate one copy each of the Judgment to all the High Courts.