LexBRINDABAN DAS AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 87 BRINDABAN DAS AND ORS. A v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2009) JANUARY 7, 2009 8 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.319 - Power of trial court to proceed against other c persons appearing to be guilty of offence - Persons not named in FIR, nor mentioned in charge-sheet, nor sent up for trial, but after two years of their discharge from the case, trial court issuing warrants of arrest against them - Held: In order to invoke power uls 319, court is not merely required to take D note of the fact that name of a person has surfaced during trial but it has also to consider whether the evidence would be sufficient to convict him - In the instant case, on the evidence adduced as regards the persons summoned uls 319, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the same would in E all probability secure conviction against them -· Order of trial court issuing warrants of arrest, and of High Court staying execution of warrants and directing the addresees to surrender and then seek bail are set aside. An F.l.R. alleging murder of the father of the F complainant was lodged on 29.11.2002 on the allegations that besides the assailant several other persons could have been behind the incident. The appellants applied for and were granted bail. The appellants were neither shown in the charge-sheet nor were they sent up for trial, on the G other hand, by an order dated 30.6.2004, they were . .., discharged from the case, Later, on an application filed uls 319 Cr.P.C by the complainant, the trial court, ·on 22.6.2006, issued warrants of arrest against the appellants 87 H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R. A for their alleged refusal to receive summons which had been issued to them earlier u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction stayed execution of the warrants holding that there was no willful defiance of the summons to necessitate issuance of warrants, and B directed the appellants to surrender before the court within three weeks and thereafter to apply for bail. c D In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellants that there was no direct evidence against them which could have formed the basis for issuance of summons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and the entire case was hear- say in nature, that the trial court ought not to have issued summons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. without recording satisfaction as to the sufficiency of evidence on record for securing conviction against the appellants. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In matters relating to invocation of powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is not merely required to take E note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the F .l.R. has surfaced during the trial, but it has also to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since issuance of summons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. entails a denovo trial and a large number of witnesses F may have to be examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity. [Para 18) [96-F-H; 97-A] G 1.2. The power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice. The fulcrum on which the Invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. rests is whether the summoning of persons H other than the named accused would make such a BRINDABAN DAS AND ORS v. STATE OF WEST 89 BENGAL difference to the prosecution as would enable it not only A to prove its case but also to secure conviction of the persons summoned. [Paras 18 and 19] [97-B-C] · Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rastogi, 1983 (1) SCC 1; Michael Machado vs. CBI, 2000 (3) SCC B 262; Krishnappa vs. State of Kamataka, 2004 (7) SCC 792 and Kuvuluri Vivekananda Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2005 (12) ._ sec 432, relied on. Rajender Singh vs. State of U.P. 2007 (7) SCC 378 and Bholu Ram vs. State of Punjab 2008 (9) SCC 140, referred C to. 1.3. In the instant case, on the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as far as the appellants are concerned, it is difficult to hold with any amount of D certainty that the same would in all probability secure a conviction against the appellants. The evidence which seeks to conn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.