KARU PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, lays down exhaustively the object and scope of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."). It also lays down the stage and circumstance for exercise of power under the said provision, inter alia.

(2.) It clearly lays down that if a person is not named in the First Information Report or a person though named in the First Information Report but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged, can be summoned under Sec. 319 of the Crimial P.C. provided that from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the persons already facing trial.

(3.) Secondly, Posing a question to itself as to what should be the nature of satisfaction and whether power under Sec. 319 (1) of the Crimial P.C. can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned will, in all likelihood, be convicted. The Supreme Court has set out, in Hardeep Singh (supra), a distinction between degree of satisfaction required for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused after commencement of trial, on the basis of evidence led at the trial.