HARDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 15 S.C.R. 735 
HARDEEP SINGH 
A 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
l 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
.8 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 319 - Power under - Scope of - Application under, c 
whether maintainable barely on the basis of examination-in-
chief of the witness or aftar cross-examination of the witness 
,, 
- Conflicting decisions on the point by coordinate Benches 
of Supreme Court - Another judgment of Supreme Court in 
the opinion of the Court substantially curtailing discretionary 'D 
poweruls. 319 (1)-Hence, the questions as to (i) when should 
the power uls. 319 be exercised and (ii) what are the test and 
guidelines for exercising the power uls. 319 referred to larger 
Bench of Supreme Court for consideration. 
s. 319 - Applications under - On the basis of evidence 
~E 
of prosecution witness - Rejection of, by courts below - On 
appeal, held: On facts, the person whose name appeared in 
FIR and was arrested from the scene of occurrence, ought to 
have been included in the charge-sheet- The order rejecting 
~ 
application in respect of the other persons was not unlawful 
F 
as nothing was found against them. 
s. 173 - Report under - Held: Should contain only the 
information - Investigating Officer is not expected to record 
findings of fact nor to give clean chit by exercising power of a cs 
Court or judicial Authority. 
Instant appeals are emanating as a result of cross 
""' 
FIRs for the same incident. Appellants in Criminal Appeal 
No. 1750 of 2008 filed FIR for commission of offences ul 
.. 
735 
H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A ss. 307, 336 and 427 r/w ss. 1208, 148 and 149 IPC and 
u/ss. 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959. Respondent 
)... 
Nos. 2 and 3 (the accused) made applications to the 
police that they were falsely implicated and hence sought 
~-
inquiry into the matter. lnqu.iry was made by the police 
B and in the report it was stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 
3 were falsely implicated. As a result, both the accused 
were discharged. During trial, PW 2 in his examination-
in-chief stated that both the accused were present at the 
time of inCident with weapons,. The name of respondent 
c No .. 2 was ·also mentioned in FIR. On the basis of the 
evidence of PW 2, prosecution filed application uts·. 319 
· Cr.P.C. to include respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as accused 
and to summon them for trial. Trial court rejected the 
i-
application. The order was confirmed by High Court.. 
·.o Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants in Criminal ·Appeal No.1751 of 2008 had 
lodged FIR u/ss .. 307, 326. 336, 447, 427 r/w ss. 148 and 
149 IPC and u/ss. 25, 27, 54 and 49 of Arms Act. Name of 
respondent No. 2 was not included in charge-sheet. PW.5 
E Stated during trial that respondent No. 2 was one of the 
members of unlawful assembly. In view of that, 
prosecution filed application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. to include 
his name as accused and to summon him. The application 
was rejected by trial court and in Revision by High Court. 
F Hence the present appeal. 
~ 
Referring two questions for consideration to three 
~· 
.~ 
Judges Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 ·Sometimes. while hearing a case against 
G one or more accused, it appears to a court from the 
evidence that some person other than the accused before 
itis also involved in that ven/ offence. Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
~ 
empowers a court to proceed against any person if it 
). 
ap·pears from the evidence that such person has also 
H 
•-
' 
HARDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
737 
. committed an offence for which he can be tried together 
A 
with other accused. [Paras 26 and 27] [747-H; 748-A, H; 
749-A] 
1.2. The primary object underlying Section 319 is that 
the whole case against all the accused should be tried 
8 
and disposed of not only expeditiously but also 
simultaneously. Justice. and convenience both require 
that cognizance against thei newly added accused should 
be taken in the same caSE! and in the same manner as- • 
against the original accused. The pQwer must be 
conceded as incidental and ancillary to the main power · C 
to take cognizance as part of normal process in the 
administration of criminal justice. [Para 28] [749-B-C] 
Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1979 
(1) SCC 345; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan , D 
Rohtagi and Ors. 1983 (1) SCC 1; Shashikant Singh v. 
Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738; Michael 
Machado 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.