JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 09-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
APRIL 9, 2003 
[Y. K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial: 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319: 
Murder-Police case against complainant and accused-Complaint Case 
against some of the accused thereafter-Accused summoned by the Court of 
Sessions-Upheld by High Court-Discretionary power of the Court-Exercise 
of-Held: The prosecution was for the same offence-Court in exercise of its 
D discretionary power could summon any person who appears to have committed 
an offence to achieve criminal ji1stice-Hence summons of accused in exercise 
of discretionary power was proper and legal-Article 20(2) not violated-
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2)-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 
148, 149, 302, 307 and 447. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
"any person not being accused"-Meaning of in the context of Section 
319 Cr. P. C. 
According to respondent No. 2-complainant, accused persons armed 
F with weapons came and tried to stop his father from ploughing the field; 
quarreled and shot him dead. Police did not register a case against the 
accused but registered a false case against the complainant at the instance 
of accused. However, as per order of the Court, a case was registered 
against all the accused excluding two of them. On the second complaint 
G the Magistrate directed summoning of these two accused as well and 
committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court had 
summoned these accused for trial and the order was upheld by the High 
Court. Hence the present special leave petitions. 
It was contended for the petitioner that since accused has been tried 
H for the same offence though in different case, Section 319 Cr. P.C. is not 
460 
JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
461 
applicable; that the trial Court did not exercise its discretionary power A 
properly and legally by summoning the petitioners; and that the High 
Court did not take note of the police case against the petitioners. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: I.I. High Court has noticed that since both the cases, viz., B 
the Police case and the complaint case were before the trial Court, these 
cases must necessarily be decided at the same time. Thus the High Court 
has taken note of the effect of the petitioners being accused in the Police 
case. (464-HJ 
1.2. Power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. can be resorted to only when C 
a person is not an accused before the Court and in the course of any 
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that such 
person has committed any offence for which he can be tried together with 
the accused. The Court has discretion to proceed against such person for 
the offence which he appears to have committed. (465-AI 
D 
1.3. Section 319 Cr. P. C. does not exclude from its purview a person 
who is not an accused before Court in a case in which order for his 
summoning is passed despite the fact that such a person being an accused 
in another case though in respect of same occurrence but with different 
version. The words ''any person not being the accused" in Section 319 E 
would cover any person who is not already before the Court in the case 
in which order under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is passed. It is the duty of the 
Court to bring before it any person who appears to have committed an 
offence and to convict and pass an appropriate order of sentence on proof 
of such person having committed the offence. (465-C-DI 
1.4. The principles laid down in *Hmjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 
and Ors. are squarely applicable to the instant case as well. The High Court 
F 
in principle and in substance has adopted a similar course in the impugned 
order. It would not result in causing any prejudice to the accused/ 
petitioners. It is the duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff and G 
punish the guilty while, at the same time, ensuring that there is no violation 
of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 1468-G-H; 469-AI 
*Hmjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., ( 198511 SCC 422, relied 
on. 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
S.S. Khanna v. Chi<f SecrelmJ', Patna and A11r., I 19831 3 SCC 42, 
distinguished. 
1.5. The power of summoning under Section 319(1) is required to 
be sparingly used, it being a discretionary power but on facts of the instant 
case, it cannot be held that the discretionary power has not been properly 
B and legally exercised. The power is to be exer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.