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

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 12-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 8 $.C.R. 762 
SARBJIT SINGH & ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2009 etc.) 
MAY 12, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
C.Jde of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 319 -
Applicability - Scope of - Held: the provision provides. 
C extraordinary power to court - Such power should be exercised 
sparingly only in extraordinary cases - While exercising it, 
court to apply stringent test. 
During trial of a murder case, on the basis of th~ 
0 statement of first informant, an application u/s. 319 CrPQ 
was filed for summoning the appellants, and the same 
was allowed by trial court. Revision before High Court 
was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The provision of Section 319 CrPC, on a 
plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case 
has been made out, must appear to the court. Before an 
additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, 
F the nature of the evidence should be such which would 
make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. 
The materials brought before the court must also be such 
which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases 
where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. 
G [Para 17] [744-E-G] 
H 
2. An order u/s. 319 CrPC, should not be passed only 
because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks 
to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent 
762 
.. 
SARBJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 
763 
ANR. 
-. 
reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as 
A 
to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit 
would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be 
convincing one, at least for the purpose of exercise of the 
extraQrdinary jurisdiction. [Para 17] [775-8-C] 
3. The courts are required to apply stringent tests; 
B 
.., 
• 
one of the tests being whether evidence on record is 
such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the 
person sought to be summoned. Mere existence of a 
prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different c 
standards are required to be applied at different stages. 
Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for 
taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing 
of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a 
~~f0!19 suspicion. While framing charge in terms of 
D 
Section 227 CrPC, the court must consider the entire 
materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence 
if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. A 
higher standard should be set up for the purpose of 
invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 319 CrPC. Unless a higher 
standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to 
E 
summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, 
:,; 
the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and 
... 
(ii) a case for SPi.lringly exercise of jurisdiction, would not 
be satisfied. [Paras 17 and 18] [775-D-H; 776-A] 
F 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi 
(1983) 1 SCC 1; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh 
(2002) 5 SCC 738; Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. 2007 
(5) SCALE 611; Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and Anr. v. State 
of Jharkhand 2008 (16) SCALE 276 and Y. Saraba Reddy G 
_;ii· .; 
v. Puthur Rami Reddy and Anr. JT 2007 (6) SC 460, relied 
on 
Rakesh v. State of Haryana (2001) 6 SCC 248; Ranjit 
Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149; Lok Pal v. Nihal 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
·-
A Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab 
and Ors. JT 2008 (12) SC 7 and Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab 
and Anr. JT 2008 (9) SC 504, referred to 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
(1983) 1 sec 1 
Relied on 
Para 12 
(2002) 5 sec 738 
Relied on 
Para 13 
• ...
(2001) 6 sec 248 
Referred to 
Para 13 
c 
(1998) 1 sec 149 
Referred to 
Para 13 
(2oos) 1 o sec 192 
Referred to 
Para 13 
;: 
2007 (5) SCALE 611 
Relied on 
Para 13 
2008 (16) SCALE 276 
Relied on 
Para 13 
• 
D 
JT 2008 (12) SC 7 
Referred to 
Para 14 
JT 2008 (9) SC 504 
Referred to 
Para 14 
JT 2007 (6) SC 460 
Relied on 
Para 17 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Criminal Appeal 
No. 998 of 2009. 
..:_ 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.10.2006 of the High 
• 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Rev. No. 
F 2073 of 2006 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 999 of 2009. 
G 
Jasbir Singh Malik, S.C. Verma (for S.K. Sabharwal), S.C. 
Verma (for Kamakshi S. Mehhwal) A.K. Mehta (for Kuldip 
) ·-
Singh) Sudhir Walia (for Mahinder Singh Dahiya) for the 
appearing pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.