Devendra Kumar Pal vs State Of U.P

2024 INSC 679 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6960 of 2021)

DEVENDRA KUMAR PAL …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order

dated 25th August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, vide which the

petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter

referred to as “learned Trial Judge”) dated 21st March 2012

was dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

3. The facts of the present case are not disputed. Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.09.11 16:40:05 IST Reason:

4. The trial court proceeded with the trial in connection

with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

1 Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

5. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge

convicted some of the accused and acquitted the others.

6. The learned Trial Judge was also of the opinion that the

present appellant was also required to be tried.

7. By an order dated 21st March 2012, the learned Trial

Judge in the first half recorded the order of conviction in

respect of the accused whom it had found to be guilty and

also recorded the order of acquittal for the remaining

accused, it found to be not guilty. Post lunch, the learned

Trial Judge first recorded the order of sentence insofar as the

accused who were convicted. Thereafter, the learned trial

Judge had passed an order summoning the present

appellant, Devendra Kumar Pal for trial by invoking powers

under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short, “Cr.P.C.”)

8. We have heard Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vishnu Shankar

Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

9. Shri Bindra, learned counsel submits that in the case of

2 Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab1, the matter

was referred to the Constitution Bench for deciding the

question as to “whether the Trial Court had power under

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning an additional accused

when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended

and the judgment of conviction and sentence was rendered

before summoning the additional accused”. Relying on the

same, he submits that, since in the present case also, first

the order of conviction and sentence was recorded and only

thereafter an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was passed,

the same would not be sustainable in law.

10. Shri Jain, learned counsel, on the contrary, submits

that the Constitution Bench has held that if the judgment of

the conviction and sentence and the order of summoning

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are passed on the same date,

the Court may have to examine the facts and circumstances

of the case. He submits that in the present case, the order of

sentence and the order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are

passed by the learned Trial Judge in the same breath and,

therefore, no error could be found with the same.

1 (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252

3

11. The issue is no more res integra.

12. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 33 of the

judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in

the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra), which reads

thus:

“33. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred as hereunder:-

“I. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

The power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.

II. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated 4 from the main trial?

The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.

III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?”

(i) If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319 of CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.

(ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon.

(iii) If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case.

(iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the

5 Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately.

(v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused.

(vi) If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with.

(vii) If the proceeding paused as in (i) above is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case.

(viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial.

(ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is

6 to set it down for re-hearing.

(x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly.

(xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held.

(xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier;

(a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.

(b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.”

13. Indisputably, in the present case, on 21st March 2012,

the order of conviction in the case of some of the accused and

the order of acquittal in the case of the other accused was

passed in the first half of the day. In the second half, the

Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who

were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under

7 Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the present appellant.

14. The Constitution Bench has clearly held that if such a

summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal

or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not

be sustainable.

15. Sitting in a two-judge combination, we are bound by the

law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court.

16. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order dated 25th August 2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court, so also the order of

summoning passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 21st

March 2012 in respect of the present appellant under Section

319 of Cr.P.C. are quashed and set aside.

17. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

….........................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

...............................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 06, 2024.

8