RANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 22-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RANJIT SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
<;riminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
C 
Sections 319 read with Sections 209 and 193, 227, 228, 229, 231 and 
482-Power of Sessions Court to array a new person as an accused under 
Section 319-Held, cannot be invoked prior to evidence collection stage-
Except Section 319, there is no intermediary stage at which Court of Session 
can add to the array of accused-Till the stage of Section 230 is reached, 
Sessions Court can deal on(v with the accused referred to in Section 209-
D But Sessions Court purporting to act under Section 319 need not wait till 
the entire evidence has been collected-However, if Sessions Judge notices 
from the materials produced the positive involvement of any person, he can 
invoke the inherent or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to summon 
such a person before the evidence stage. 
E 
Section 319-"Evidence" as envisaged in Section 319-Material placed 
before the committal court cannot be treated as evidence during enquiry or 
trial but the evidence adduced during trial of the case if the offence is triable 
by a Court of Session. 
· Eight persons including the appellant constituted an unlawful assembly. 
F At the instance of the appellant, one of the members of the assembly forcibly 
took the rifle of a gunman and fired at the deceased. FIR was registered, but 
after an investigation, police exonerated the appellant The case was committed 
to the Om rt of Session. However, before the evidence collection stage, the 
Sessions Court, in response to a petition filed by the complainant alleging 
G that the exoneration of the appellant by the police was improper, arraigned 
the appellant as an accused in the case relying on the decision of this Court 
in Kishun Singh(*). The order of the Sessions Judge was challenged before 
the High Court but the same was confirmed by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal 
H 
It was contended by appellant that only provision which enables the 
8 
• 
RANJIT SINGH v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
9 
Sessions Court to add a new accused is Section 319 CrPC and the same A 
could be invoked only on the strength of evidence in tile trial, ot'herwise the 
purpose of requiring the investigating officer to submit final report under 
Section 173 of the Code would be obliterated. 
This Court expressed its reservations regarding legal position as 
propounded by Kishun Singh 's case (*), and in Raj Kishore Prasa::J's case (**). B 
Therefore, the question in this appeal whether Sessions Court had power 
under Section 319 to arraign a new person, prior to the evidence-collection 
stage, was directed to be considered by a larger Bench of this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. With the committal order, the Sessions Court gets 
unfettered jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences involved in the 
case. But the crucial question is whether such jurisdiction would envelop 
.powers to summon any person as an accused other than those covered by the 
committal order. From the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reaches D 
the stage of evidence collection indicated in Section 230 Cr PC., that court 
can deal with only the accused referred to in Section 209 CrPC. There is 
no intermediary stage till then for the Sessions Court to add any other 
person to the array of the accused. (14-C; 16-A-B] 
1.2. Once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant E 
to the committal order, the only other stage when the court is empowered to 
add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence 
collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. There 
is no other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person 
or persons to the array of the accused. However, it is not necessary for the 
court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said F 
powers. (16-8-C] 
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 345, relied on. 
(*) Kishun Singh v. State ofBihar, [1993] 2 SCC 16 and Nissar v. State 
of UP., (1995] 2 sec 23, referred to. 
G 
1.3. However, all the materials produced by the investigating agency 
clearly show the positive involvement of a person who was not shown in the 
array of the accused due to some inadvertence or om mission. The Sessions 
Court is not altogether p9werless to deal with such situations to prevent 
miscarriage of justice. It is then

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