JOGINDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 16-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
306 
JOGINDER SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
November 16, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.j 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), s. 319-Scope of-Ses-
sions Court l-vhether has power to add any person as an accused in the absence 
of any committal order-Sections 193 and 209 whether bar to the Court of 
Sess1"ons taking cognizance of offence as a court of original jurisdiction. 
C 
A criminal complaint was registered against five persons, amongst whom the 
D 
E 
F 
H 
two appellants were included. The r:olice having found that the two appellants 
\Vere innocent, charge-sheeted the remaining three persons. 
They were com-
mitted to trial. 
At the trial after evidence showing the appellants' involvement in the crime 
was recorded the prosecution moved an application that they be tried, along 
with the three accused. The Sessions Judge directed the appellants to stand trial, 
together with the other accused. 
Their revision application to the High Co11rt 
was dismissed. 
In their appeal to this Court it \vas contended that, ( 1) sections 193 and 
209 Cr.P.C. were a bar to the Court of Sessions taking cognizance of any 
offence 26 a court of original jurisdk:tion and (2) s. 319 was inapplicable to. 
the facts of this case because that section in so far as it is applicable to a 
Sessions Court would be subject to or subordinate to s. 193 and the phrase "any 
person not being the accused" occurring in the section excludes from it'l opera-
tion an accused who had been released by the police. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (1) A plain reading of s. 319(1) clearly shows that it applies to 
all the courts including a Sessions C'ourt and as such a Sessions Court will 
have the power to add any pers0'3. not being the accused before it but against 
whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his inYolvement 
in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried alongwith the other 
"ccused. [31 JE·F] 
(2) (a) Both under s. 193 and s. 209 the commitment is of 'the case' and 
not of 'the accused' whereas under the equivalent provision of the old Code 
viz., s. 193 ( 1) and s. 207 A it was 'the accused' who W26 committed and not 
·~he cas~·-
[312D] 
(b) Although there cannot be a committal of the case without there being 
an accused person before the court, this only means that before a case in respect 
of an offence is committed there must be tome accused suspected to b'' involved 
in the crime before the Court but once the ca6e in respect of the offence qua 
those accused who were before the Court is committed then the cognizance of 
the offence can be said to have been taken properly by the Sessions Court and 
tlle bar of s. 193 'would be out of the way. [312E] 
• 
. , 
'r 
• 
• 
• 
'. • 
I 
-~ \ 
JOGil'DER SINGH v. PUNJAB (Tulziipurkar, J.) 
3 07 
(c) The summoning of additional persons who appear to be involved in the 
crime from the evidence led during the trial and directing them to stand their 
trial alongwith those who had aheady been committed must be regarded as 
in<:idental to such cognizance and a part of the normal process that follows it; 
otherwise the C'Onferal of the power under s. 319 ( 1) upon the Sessions Court 
would be rendt~red nugatory. [312F] 
(d) Section 319 (4) (b) which enacts a deeming provision provides 
that 
where the Court proceeds against any person under subMsection ( 1), the case 
ma.y proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court tcok 
cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced; in 
other words, such person must be deemed to be an accused at the time of 
commitment because it is at that point of time the Sessions Court in law takes 
cognizance of the offence. 
[312G] 
A 
B 
(3) Under s. 193 read with s. 209 of the Code when a case is committed 
C 
to the Court of Sessions in respect of an offence the Court of Sessions takes 
cognizance of the offence and not of the 2.ccused and once the Session Court 
is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order against some 
accused the power under s. 31_9(1) can come into play and such Court can add 
any person, not an accused before it, as an 2ccused and direct him to be tried 
alongwith the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears 
to have committed, from the evidence recorded at the trial. 
Looking at the 
D 
provisicia from this angle there \vould be no question of reading s. 319(1

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