Supreme Court Clarifies Power of Trial Courts Under Section 319 CrPC

The case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab involved a crucial question regarding the power of trial courts under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The appellant challenged an order summoning him as an additional accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The case raised fundamental legal questions about the stage at which a trial court can summon an accused, especially after the conclusion of the trial for co-accused.

Background of the Case

The case began with an FIR registered on March 5, 2015, at the Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad, against 11 accused for offenses under:

Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30 of the NDPS Act, 1985
Section 25-A of the Arms Act
Section 66 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000

In the charge sheet filed on September 6, 2015, 10 accused were summoned and put to trial, but the appellant was not named. During the trial, prosecution witnesses were recalled, and their fresh testimonies implicated the appellant. As a result, an application under Section 319 of CrPC was filed on September 21, 2017, to summon the appellant and four others as additional accused.

Arguments by the Appellant

Represented by Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, the appellant challenged the summoning order on the following grounds:

The trial had already concluded with the conviction of nine accused and acquittal of one on October 31, 2017. Hence, the court had become functus officio and had no power to summon additional accused.
Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of additional accused only while the trial is ongoing and before the pronouncement of judgment.
Once a judgment is pronounced, the court ceases to have jurisdiction over the case, making any summoning order passed afterward invalid.
Since the appellant was never named in the charge sheet, summoning him at this late stage would violate the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Punjab)

The State of Punjab, represented by Advocate General Vinod Ghai, countered that:

The intent behind Section 319 CrPC is to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial.
A constructive and purposive interpretation should be given to Section 319 to prevent the accused from evading justice.
Even if the trial against other accused has concluded, the court retains the power to summon additional accused as long as the sentencing process is pending.
The conclusion of trial should be understood as extending beyond conviction, up to the stage of sentencing.

Key Questions Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following legal questions:

Can a trial court summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC after concluding the trial of co-accused but before sentencing?
Can a trial court summon additional accused when the trial for absconding accused (bifurcated from the main trial) is still ongoing?
What guidelines should courts follow while exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, analyzed the intent and scope of Section 319 CrPC. The key observations included:

Trial does not end with conviction but with sentencing: The Court held that trial continues until sentencing, and a judgment is complete only after the sentence is pronounced.
Section 319 can be exercised before pronouncement of judgment: If a trial court wishes to summon additional accused, it must do so before pronouncing the final judgment.
Summoning orders passed after sentencing are invalid: If the trial court has already sentenced the accused, it becomes functus officio and cannot summon new accused.
Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used in another: If an absconding accused is tried separately, evidence from the main trial cannot be used to summon additional accused in the split trial.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“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. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced.”

The Court laid down the following guidelines for trial courts exercising power under Section 319 CrPC:

Once evidence emerges against additional accused, the trial should be paused, and the court should first decide on summoning the accused.
If additional accused are summoned, the court must determine whether they will be tried jointly or separately.
If a joint trial is ordered, proceedings against the existing accused should be paused until the new accused appear.
If a separate trial is ordered, the trial of the original accused can continue to conclusion.
Once judgment is pronounced, the court loses the power to summon additional accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab brings much-needed clarity to the scope of Section 319 CrPC. The judgment reinforces that summoning additional accused must occur before the judgment is pronounced and that the trial court loses jurisdiction after sentencing. This ensures fairness in criminal trials while preventing misuse of procedural powers.

Petitioner Name: Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 05-12-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sukhpal-singh-khaira-vs-state-of-punjab-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-12-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category