HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 06-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 171 
HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJ 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2010) 
JANUARY 6, 2010 
[V.5. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 319(4)(a) and (b); 
244 - Criminal proceedings - New accused joined to the C 
proceedings after charges framed against the original 
accused - Right of newly added accused for initiation of 
proceedings qua him from the stage of s. 244 and right to 
cross-examine the witnesses before framing of charges -
Held: The whole inquiry in respect of the newly added accused D 
should commence afresh from the stage of s. 244 - Such 
accused had the right to cross-examine the witnesses. 
Words and Phrases: 'Commence afresh' and 
'Proceedings' - Meaning of, in the context of s. 319(4)(a) 
E 
Cr.P.C. 
In a criminal proceeding u/s. 406 r/w s. 114 IPC, after 
the charges were framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 
4, appellant filed an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C., 
requesting to array respondent No. 5 as a co-accused. 
F 
The application was allowed. Respondent No. 5 filed an 
application seeking to commence the proceedings qua 
him, from the stage of inquiry i.e. from the stage of s. 244 
Cr.P.C. and to allow cross-examination of prosecution 
witnesses at the stage of evidence before charge. G 
Application was allowed. Trial court also split the trial of 
respondent No. 5 from the trial of respondent Nos. 2 to 
4. The order as regards splitting of trial was quashed by 
High Court Appellant's application, seeking quashing of 
171 
H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A the order, whereby trial court had ordered de novo 
proceedings as against respondent No. 5 from the stage 
of inquiry, was rejected by High Court. 
B 
· Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 319 Cr.P.C. suggests that there 
is no escape from commencing the proceedings afresh 
and also that the witnesses have to be re-heard. Clause 
(a) of Section 319 (4) is the basic provision and the use 
of the words 'proceedings' and the term 'commence 
C afresh' has its own significance. If the plea that the newly 
joined accused has no right of cross-examination is 
accepted, it would mean that on being joined under 
Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C., the only step that would be 
required would be framing of charge against him. In that 
D event, there would be a complete denial to such accused 
of an important right of cross-examination of the 
witnesses before the framing of the charge and it would 
only mean that such accused would remain a mute 
spectator till the framing of the charge. [Para 11] [179-E-
E HJ 
1.2. The Court would also give a meaningful 
interpretation to the word 'proceedings' which has been 
deliberately used by the Leglst$ure. The Legislature 
does not use the word 'trial' which essentially begins after 
F framing of the charge. If the legislature had intended that 
the newly joined accused should not get the right of · 
cross-examining the witnesses examined before framing 
of the charge, it might have used the word 'trial'. The 
deliberate use of the word 'proceedings' would then 
G include not only the trial but also the inquiry which 
commences with Section 244 Cr.P.C. artd ends with the 
framing of the charge under Section 246 Cr.P.C. [Para 12] 
[180-A-C) 
H 
1.3. The terminology 'commence afresh' has also its 
HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJ v. STATE OF 
173 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
own force. It indicates that the whole inquiry which 
A 
commences from Section 244 Cr.P.C. must begin afresh. 
The interpretation given to the word 'proceedings' by the 
Court, is buttressed by the language of Section 319(b) 
Cr.P.C. The plain language takes back the whole 
proceedings to the stage of taking cognizance. 
B 
Therefore, the language of Section 319 Cr.P .C. itself 
pushes the proceedings back to the stage of inquiry, 
once the order under Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. is passed 
by the Court and a new accused is joined therein. [Para 
12) [180-C-E] 
C 
1.4. If the interpretation that Section 319(4) does not 
require de novo inquiry, is to be accepted then a 
complainant, wherein it is a case of multiple accused, may 
mischievously join only few of them and after getting the 
charge framed, make an application under Section 319 
D 
Cr.P.C. to join some other accused persons who would 
then have no right of cross-examination of the witnesses 
and who would be required to be the mute spectators to 
the charge being framed against which they could
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.