HARDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM

Cited by 44 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 2 S.C.R. 1 
HARDEEP SINGH . 
v. 
~ ·, 
,,\ 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ·ORS. 
· 
·(Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2008 etc.) 
• 
', ,... 
. • 
,_! 
~ 
,,JANUARY 10, 2014 . 
~ .. 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, DR .. B.S. CHAUHAN, RANJANA · 
PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOi, AND · . 
.. S.A .. BOBDE, JJ.] . . 
' 
. 
, 
\ ,\ -
· CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
--
•''-
. 
-
-
s.31.9 ~·Power to.proceed against other person appearing . 
to be guilty pf offence.~ Stage of excise of power - Held: Power 
u/s 319(1) can be' exercised at anytime after th'e charge-sheet 
A 
B 
c 
is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment - s. 319 
uses the expressions 'inquiry'..and 'trial'..- Stage of inquiry D 
commences, insofar 'as the. court is. concerned, with. filing of 
charge-sheet and consideration of material collected by 
prosecution, that is. mentioned in the charge-sheet for the 
purpose of trying the. accused. -, As a trial c.ommences. after 
-
framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a E 
. pre-trial inquiry - Inquiries u/ss 200, 201, 202 and uls 398 are 
species of the in.quiry. contemplated bys. 319 '.'."" In order to 
invoke the power uls 319, it is only a Court of Session or a 
Court of Magistrate performing the duties as a court under 
Cr.P.C. that can utilize the material beforeit for the purpose 
F 
of the said Section'.'."" The stage of committal is.neither.an 
inquiry nor a trial -The view in Dharamp Pal (CB) that.after 
committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken by Court 
of Session u/s 193 Cr.P.C against a person not named as an 
accused but against whom materials are available from the G 
papers filed by the police after completion of investigation and 
Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' uls 319 Cr.P.C. 
• becomes available for summoning an additional accused, is 
· concurred with -
'Trial' commences only on charges being 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A framed -- The view that in a criminal case, trial commences 
on cognizance being taken, is not approved -- The 
interpretation given by the Constitution Bench in- Dharam Pal 
(CB) thats. 193 Cr.P.C. confers power of original jurisdiction 
upon the Court of Session to add an accused once the case 
B has been committed to it, is concurred with -- Maxims ]udex 
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur' and 'a verbis legis non est 
recedendum' - Interpretation of statutes. 
s.319 rlw s. 227 - 'Evidence' for the purpose of s.319 -
C 
Connotation of - Held: For exercise of power u/s 319, the use 
of word ·evidence' means material that has come before the 
court during an inquiry or trial by it and not othf¥rwise -- Wo.rd 
"evidence" in s.319 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 
D evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or 
the court to decide whether power u/s 319 is to be exercised 
and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. 
s. 319 - Exercise of power uls 319 on the basis of 
E examination-in-chief - Held: Once examination-in-chief is 
conducted, the statement becomes part of the record -- It is 
evidence as per law and in the true sense, though, it may be 
rebuttable --Power u/s 319 can be exercised at the stage of 
completion of examination-in- chief and court need not wait 
F 
till said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the 
satisf[3ction of 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 - Evidence Act, 
1872 - s.3. 
G 
s.319 - Nature of satisfaction required to invoke power 
H 
u/s 319 - Held: 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 
HARDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
3 
complicity of person concerned - The test that has to be 
A 
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 u/s 319 Cr. P. C. 
B 
s.319 - Power to proceed against other person - Scope 
of- Held: s.319 is an enabling provision, it empowers the court 
to proceed against any

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