Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Trial Court’s Power to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC

Constitution Bench Rules Summoning Order Must Precede Conclusion of Trial by Sentence; Guidelines for Exercising Power Under Section 319 Laid Down

In a landmark judgment dated December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab delivered a crucial interpretation of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Court clarified the exact stage at which a trial court can exercise its power to summon additional accused persons during a criminal trial.

The case arose from a narcotics and arms offence trial where the appellant, Sukhpal Singh Khaira, was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the same day the trial court pronounced conviction and sentence against other accused. The appellant challenged the summoning order, contending that the trial had already concluded with the judgment of conviction and sentence, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to summon additional accused persons.

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the legislative intent behind Section 319 CrPC, earlier precedents including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), and the procedural provisions relating to judgment under Sections 232, 235, 353, and 354 CrPC. The Court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised cautiously.

Key rulings include:

1. Timing of Summoning Additional Accused:

 The Court ruled that the trial court’s power to summon additional accused must be invoked and exercised *before* the pronouncement of the sentence where conviction is recorded. In cases of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Therefore, the summoning order must precede the conclusion of the trial by the imposition of sentence. If the summoning order is passed after sentencing or acquittal, it is unsustainable in law.

2. Effect of Split (Bifurcated) Trials:

 Where trials against some accused are bifurcated due to absconding accused, the court may summon additional accused during the ongoing split trial, but only on the basis of evidence recorded in the pending trial. Evidence from a concluded main trial cannot be the basis to summon additional accused.

3. Guidelines for Exercising Power Under Section 319 CrPC:

 The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for trial courts, including:

 - Pausing the trial upon receiving evidence or an application to summon additional accused before passing judgment or sentence.

 - Deciding whether to summon the additional accused before proceeding further.

 - If summoned, deciding whether to conduct a joint trial or separate trial.

 - Conducting a fresh trial for the summoned accused with witnesses reheard.

 - Allowing the main trial to proceed to conclusion if separate trial is decided.

 - Setting down the matter for re-hearing if the power is sought to be exercised after arguments are heard but before judgment is pronounced.

The Constitution Bench emphasized that Section 319 CrPC is designed to ensure that no real culprit goes free merely due to the investigative agency’s failure to array them as accused initially. The power is a vital judicial tool to bring all guilty parties to justice, but must be exercised within the procedural safeguards and the correct stage of the trial.

The judgment also clarified the concept of “conclusion of trial” — in cases of conviction, the trial concludes only after the sentence is imposed, as the judgment is incomplete without sentencing. In contrast, in acquittal cases, the trial concludes with the recording of the acquittal order.

This authoritative pronouncement will guide lower courts on the proper exercise of Section 319 CrPC powers, striking a balance between procedural fairness and the imperative of justice.

Statutory provisions

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319, Section 232, Section 235, Section 353, Section 354, Section 273, Section 223, Section 311, Section 190, Section 360

---

*This judgment reinforces the procedural sanctity of criminal trials and ensures courts’ powers are exercised at the correct stage, thereby enhancing the fairness and effectiveness of criminal justice delivery in India.*

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2080153