JAMIN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 06-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 638 : 2025 INSC 330
Jamin & Anr. 
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025)
06 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional 
jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial 
Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent 
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC; (ii) Whether the order dated 21.02.2024 
passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the order passed by the 
High Court directing it to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC 
would relate back and replace its earlier order dated 19.07.2010 
rejecting the s.319 application; (iii) Whether the Trial Court could 
have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of the CrPC after the 
conclusion of the trial, more particularly when no stay on trial had 
been granted by the High Court; (iv) Whether the High Court should 
have given an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused 
before deciding the revision petition filed against the rejection of 
application u/s.319 of the CrPC by the Trial Court. If yes, whether 
the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the High Court in exercise 
of its revisional jurisdiction was passed without issuing notice to 
the appellants and providing them an opportunity of hearing.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.319, 397, 401 – Whether 
the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction 
for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court 
rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent 
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC:
Held: The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was 
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting 
the second application preferred by respondent no.2 u/s.319 of 
the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary 
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
639
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality, 
thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice – Once a superior 
court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate 
court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of 
revisional powers u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC must be treated 
on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court 
and as a result would relate back to the time the original order 
was passed – By virtue of relating back of the order passed by 
the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed 
by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court 
would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second 
application u/s.319, and therefore could be said to have been 
passed before the conclusion of the trial – Unlike cases where 
an application u/s.319 is being decided in the first instance by 
the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the 
adjudication of an application u/s.319 in terms of the directions 
of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 
[Paras 115(a),115(b), 115(c), 115(d)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Whether the order 
dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the 
order passed by the High Court directing it to reconsider the 
application u/s.319 of CrPC would relate back and replace its 
earlier order dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the s.319 application:
Held: The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by 
the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High 
Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021 – Therefore, 
the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional 
order passed by the High Court – The combined effect of the 
revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning 
order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that 
the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second 
s.319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning 
order dated 21.02.2024 – Thus, although the summoning order 
in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, 
after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have 
been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by 
this Court in Maru Ram case and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat case. 
[Para 115(f)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Whether the Trial 
Court could have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of 

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