Court’s Decision
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the power under Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 319 Cr.P.C.) must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Justice Sameer Jain quashed the order of the trial court that had summoned three additional accused persons to face trial, holding that the lower court failed to record any satisfaction about the sufficiency of evidence warranting their summoning.
The Court observed:
“The power under Section 319 BNSS is an extraordinary one and must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial showing the involvement of persons not originally arrayed as accused. Mere mention of their names or suspicion is not sufficient.”
Holding that the trial court had acted mechanically and without due application of judicial mind, the High Court set aside the impugned summoning order.
Facts
The proceedings arose out of a criminal case registered in Uttar Pradesh concerning allegations of assault and grievous injuries. During trial, the prosecution examined one of the witnesses who named three individuals, alleging their participation in the offence.
On the basis of this testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 BNSS seeking to summon these individuals as additional accused. The trial court allowed the application and directed their summoning.
Aggrieved, the newly summoned individuals approached the Allahabad High Court contending that the order was passed without any analysis of evidence, in complete disregard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court governing the scope of Section 319.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in summoning the applicants as additional accused without recording satisfaction that strong and cogent evidence existed against them.
- Whether mere mention of a person’s name in a witness statement is sufficient to justify summoning under Section 319 BNSS.
- Whether the discretion under Section 319 can be exercised mechanically at the behest of the prosecution without judicial reasoning.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the trial court acted mechanically while invoking Section 319 BNSS, without assessing whether the evidence presented during trial was sufficient to hold them guilty if unrebutted. They contended that mere reference to their names by a witness could not be construed as “evidence” under the meaning of the law.
It was submitted that the trial court failed to record subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of strong and cogent evidence, as required by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
The petitioners further relied on Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, contending that the degree of satisfaction necessary for summoning an accused under Section 319 BNSS is higher than that required for framing of charges, and the lower court had not met that standard.
It was urged that the power under Section 319 is extraordinary and discretionary, to be used sparingly and only when compelling evidence arises during trial, not merely upon suspicion or hearsay.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State and complainant opposed the petition, submitting that the testimony of the witness clearly named the petitioners, and such mention during the trial was sufficient for summoning them as accused under Section 319 BNSS.
It was argued that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and that the power under Section 319 is designed to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial due to procedural lapses.
The respondents relied upon Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. and Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2023) to submit that once evidence prima facie discloses involvement, the court should not hesitate to summon an individual, even at an advanced stage of the proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court carefully examined the statutory framework under Section 319 BNSS, which empowers a court to summon any person appearing to have committed an offence based on evidence presented during trial. Justice Sameer Jain observed that the word “evidence” under this section refers to evidence recorded during trial, not materials collected during investigation.
Referring to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that the degree of satisfaction required to invoke Section 319 must be “higher than that for framing of charges but short of conviction.” The power, though discretionary, is not to be exercised casually.
The Court held that the trial court must record its satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. The absence of such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
Precedent Analysis
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
The Supreme Court constitution bench held that the power under Section 319 should be exercised sparingly, and only when strong and cogent evidence arises during trial against a person not originally accused. The evidence must indicate that such person’s involvement is almost certain, and not based on mere suspicion. - Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706
Reiterated that summoning an additional accused requires a higher standard of satisfaction than that needed for framing charges. The trial court must evaluate whether the material, if unrebutted, could lead to conviction. - Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of U.P. (2023)
While supporting broad interpretation of Section 319 to ensure complete justice, the Court cautioned that such power should not be used to fill lacunae in the prosecution’s case. - Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. (2023)
Reaffirmed that Section 319 proceedings are judicial in nature, requiring application of mind and reasoned satisfaction by the trial court.
The Allahabad High Court applied these precedents and concluded that the trial court had failed to comply with the legal test laid down by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sameer Jain observed that the trial court’s order summoning the petitioners was devoid of any analytical discussion or judicial reasoning. It did not indicate whether the evidence produced was strong enough to sustain conviction if unrebutted.
The High Court emphasized:
“The satisfaction of the court must not be mechanical or perfunctory. A reasoned order reflecting judicial application of mind is the sine qua non of any exercise under Section 319 BNSS.”
The Court found that the trial judge merely referred to the deposition of a witness who had named the petitioners but failed to analyze the credibility, corroboration, or sufficiency of that statement.
Since there was no satisfaction recorded that the evidence was strong and cogent, the summoning order could not stand judicial scrutiny. The Court thus quashed the order, while clarifying that the prosecution may renew its request if stronger evidence emerges later during trial.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the summoning order passed under Section 319 BNSS, holding that the lower court failed to record satisfaction as required by law.
The judgment reinforces that courts must exercise extreme caution before summoning additional accused, as such power can have far-reaching consequences on personal liberty.
The Court concluded:
“The discretionary power under Section 319 BNSS is a judicial weapon, not to be wielded casually but with circumspection and responsibility.”
Implications
- Reaffirms that summoning under Section 319 BNSS requires strong and cogent evidence, not mere suspicion.
- Mandates reasoned judicial satisfaction before invoking such power.
- Serves as a caution to trial courts against mechanical exercise of authority under Section 319.
- Protects individuals from arbitrary prosecution based on unverified witness statements.
