SHASHIKANT SINGH versus TARKESHWAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 24-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHASHIKANT SINGH 
v. 
TARKESHWAR SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2002 
B • 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE ANO Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 319-Power to proceed 
against persons other than the accused who appear to be guilty of offence-
C Conclusion of trial in respect of accused before the Court-Summoning of 
newly added person for. trial pursuant to order passed by court-Effect of-
Held, such person can be tried for the offence for which he is summoned after 
the conclusion of the trial since fresh trial in respect of newly added person 
is mandatory whereas the mandate that 'newly added accused could be tried 
together with the accused is directory. 
D 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes~Provision capable of two possible 
constructions-Scope of-Court to adopt a reasonable and common sense 
approach rather than construction which would lead to absurd results. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Could be tried together with the accused'-Interpretation of-In the 
context of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
The questiof! \~hich arose for consideration is, can a person summoned 
pursuant to an o~l passed by a court in exercise of power conferred by 
F Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be tried for the offence 
for which he is summoned after the conclusion of the trial wherein such an 
order of summoning was passed. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The effect of the conclusion of the trial against the accused 
who was being proceeded with when the order was passed under Section 
319(1) for proceeding against the newly added person, is to be examined in 
the light of Section 319(4) which stipulates a de novo trial in respect of the 
newly added persons and certain well settled principles of interpretation. 
(405-A, B] 
.. 
SHASHIKANT SINGH v. TARKESHW AR SINGH 
401 
1.2. The intention of the provision is that where in the course of any A 
enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears to the court from the evidence 
that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, the Court 
may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. 
At that stage, the court would consider that such a person could be tried 
together with the accused who is already before the Court facing the trial. B 
The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the proceedings right 
from the beginning have mandatorily to be commenced afresh and the 
witnesses re-heard. There has to be a de novo trial against him which is 
mandatory provision. It vitally affects the rights of a person so br011ght before 
the Court. It would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses for the cross-
examination of such a person. They have to be examined afresh. Fresh C 
examination-in-chief and not only their presentation for the purpose of the 
cross-examination of the newly added accused is the mandate of Section 
319(4). The words 'could be tried together with the accused' in Section 319(1), 
appear to be only directory, 'Could be' cannot under these circumstances be 
held to be 'must be'. The provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since 
the trial in respect of a person who was before the Court has concluded with D 
the result that the newly added person cannot be' tried together with the 
accused who was before the Court when order under Section 319(1) was 
passed, the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the 
opinion earlier formed by the Court on the basis of evidence before it that 
the newly added person appear to have committed the offence resulting in E 
an order for his being brought before this Court [405-E, F, G, H; 406-A] 
1.3. The mandate of the law of fresh trial is mandatory whereas the 
mandate ihat newly added accused could be tried together with the accused 
is directory. [406-C] 
1.4. On facts, the court could not have intended while concluding the 
trial against the accused to nullify its earlier order directing issue or warrants 
against other accused. The construction to be placed on such a provision has 
to commend to justice and reason. The words 'could be tried together with 
F 
the accused' in Section 319(1) cannot be said to be capable of only one 
construction. If it was so, approach to be adopted would be different since G 
the intention of the Parliament is to be respected despite the consequences of 
interpretation. There is, however, a scope for two possible constructions. That 
being the position, a r

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