Y. SARABA REDDY versus PUTHUR RAMI REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 07-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

Y. SARABA REDDY 
A 
v. 
PUTHUR RAMI REDDY AND ORS. 
MAY 7, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.319-Scope and ambit a/-
Omission of the name of a person from the array of accused, after investigation 
by Special Investigating Officer-Their names found in the FIR and statement C 
of witnesses-Application u/s 319-Rejection of by trial Court-Affirmation 
thereof by High Court on the ground of delay and after examining reliability 
of evidence of the complainant-On appeal-Held: Power u/s 319 can be 
exercised suo motu or on application-However, it is extraordinary power, 
which should be used very sparingly-Trial Court has the jurisdiction to add 
a person in the array of accused and face trial-Such addition can be done D 
only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of 
material in the charge-sheet or case diary, as the same does not constitute 
evidence-There was no belated approach-Calling of records from 
Investigating Officer for deciding reliability of version of complainant is 
unusual procedure-Hence direction to trial Court to take steps for 
proceedings u/s 319. 
E 
A complaint was lodged by PW-1 (complainant) against the respondent-
accused for having caused death of the deceased. Investigation was taken up. 
On an application made by the accused, matter was investigated by Deputy 
Superintendent of Police and on the basis of its report, their names were F 
deleted from the array of accused. They were not included in the charge-sheet. 
After complainant (PWl) was examined, he filed a petition u/s 319 Cr.P.C. 
for arraying the respondents as accused. Trial Court rejected the application 
on the ground that omission of their names were directed on satisfaction by 
the Superintendent of Police. State as well as complainant filed Revision 
Petitions. High Court called for the records from the Investigating Officer to G 
satisfy as to whether the version of PW-1 was reliable or not. Then it affirmed 
the order of trial court and also held that there was delay in filing the 
application. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
69 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. On a careful reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in view of 
r 
law laid down by the courts, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted 
jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial 
along with other accused person, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the 
proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been 
arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person 
B even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge 
sheeted, can be added to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to 
add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it 
and not on the basis of materials available in the charge sheet or the case 
diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary 
C do not constitute evidence. [Para 12) [74-G-H; 75-A-B) 
Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 
339 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., 
[1982) l sec 2, relied on. 
D 
1.2. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court 
suo mo/u or on application by someone including accused already before it. If 
it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence 
he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and 
such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case. Undisputably, it is an extraordinary power which 
E is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if 
compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom 
action had not been taken earlier. The word 'evidence' in Section 319 
contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in Court. Under Sub-section 4 
(l)(b) of Section 319, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed 
F that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took 
cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or (rial was commenced. 
That would show that by virtue of Sub-section 4(1 Xb ), a legal fiction is created 
that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added 
accused is concerned. [Para 13) [7

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