# Jamin & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 330
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jamin-anr-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-38347
- **Pages:** 76

## Headnote

(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional
jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial
Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC; (ii) Whether the order dated 21.02.2024
passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the order passed by the
High Court directing it to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC
would relate back and replace its earlier order dated 19.07.2010
rejecting the s.319 application; (iii) Whether the Trial Court could
have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of the CrPC after the
conclusion of the trial, more particularly when no stay on trial had
been granted by the High Court; (iv) Whether the High Court should
have given an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused
before deciding the revision petition filed against the rejection of
application u/s.319 of the CrPC by the Trial Court. If yes, whether
the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the High Court in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction was passed without issuing notice to
the appellants and providing them an opportunity of hearing.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.319, 397, 401 - Whether
the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction
for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court
rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC:
Held: The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting
the second application preferred by respondent no.2 u/s.319 of
the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
639
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality,
thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice - Once a superior
court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate
court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of
revisional powers u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC must be treated
on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court
and as a result would relate back to the time the original order
was passed - By virtue of relating back of the order passed by
the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed
by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court
would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second
application u/s.319, and therefore could be said to have been
passed before the conclusion of the trial - Unlike cases where
an application u/s.319 is being decided in the first instance by
the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the
adjudication of an application u/s.319 in terms of the directions
of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
[Paras 115(a),115(b), 115(c), 115(d)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Whether the order
dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the
order passed by the High Court directing it to reconsider the
application u/s.319 of CrPC would relate back and replace its
earlier order dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the s.319 application:
Held: The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by
the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High
Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021 - Therefore,
the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional
order passed by the High Court - The combined effect of the
revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning
order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that
the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second
s.319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning
order dated 21.02.2024 - Thus, although the summoning order
in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is,
after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have
been passed on 19.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,935 of 164,543. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39935 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 638 : 2025 INSC 330
Jamin & Anr.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025)
06 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional
jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial
Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC; (ii) Whether the order dated 21.02.2024
passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the order passed by the
High Court directing it to reconsider the application u/s.319 of CrPC
would relate back and replace its earlier order dated 19.07.2010
rejecting the s.319 application; (iii) Whether the Trial Court could
have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of the CrPC after the
conclusion of the trial, more particularly when no stay on trial had
been granted by the High Court; (iv) Whether the High Court should
have given an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused
before deciding the revision petition filed against the rejection of
application u/s.319 of the CrPC by the Trial Court. If yes, whether
the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the High Court in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction was passed without issuing notice to
the appellants and providing them an opportunity of hearing.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.319, 397, 401 - Whether
the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction
for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court
rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent
no.2 u/s.319 of the CrPC:
Held: The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting
the second application preferred by respondent no.2 u/s.319 of
the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
639
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality,
thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice - Once a superior
court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate
court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of
revisional powers u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC must be treated
on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court
and as a result would relate back to the time the original order
was passed - By virtue of relating back of the order passed by
the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed
by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court
would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second
application u/s.319, and therefore could be said to have been
passed before the conclusion of the trial - Unlike cases where
an application u/s.319 is being decided in the first instance by
the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the
adjudication of an application u/s.319 in terms of the directions
of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
[Paras 115(a),115(b), 115(c), 115(d)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Whether the order
dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court to give effect to the
order passed by the High Court directing it to reconsider the
application u/s.319 of CrPC would relate back and replace its
earlier order dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the s.319 application:
Held: The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by
the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High
Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021 - Therefore,
the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional
order passed by the High Court - The combined effect of the
revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning
order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that
the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second
s.319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning
order dated 21.02.2024 - Thus, although the summoning order
in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is,
after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have
been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by
this Court in Maru Ram case and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat case.
[Para 115(f)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Whether the Trial
Court could have entertained an application filed u/s.319 of
640
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the CrPC after the conclusion of the trial, more particularly
when no stay on trial had been granted by the High Court:
Held: The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application u/s.319 of
CrPC - The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be
rendered nugatory solely because the trial was not stayed by the
High Court and stood concluded before the High Court could pass
the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - Therefore, unlike
cases where an application u/s.319 is being decided in the first
instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will not have a
bearing on the adjudication of an application u/s.319 in terms of the
directions of the High Court passed by way of a revisional order.
[Paras 100, 101]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Whether the High
Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the
proposed accused before deciding the revision petition filed
against the rejection of application u/s.319 of the CrPC by the
Trial Court - If yes, whether the order dated 14.09.2021 passed
by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was
passed without issuing notice to the appellants and providing
them an opportunity of hearing:
Held: s.319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must
be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an
accused to face the trial - A right of hearing would accrue only to
a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding
prior to the commencement of the trial - This is different from
holding that a person who has been summoned as per s.319
CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles
of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried
along with the other accused - However, after the rejection of
an application u/s.319, a right enures in favour of the proposed
accused - Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the
High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit
which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused,
then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity
of hearing to the proposed accused - This is also the mandate as
contained in sub-section (2) of s.401 of the CrPC - In the instant
case, a perusal of the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Revision
Petition No. 400/2010 clearly indicates that the appellants were
respondent nos.2 and 4, respectively, before the High Court -
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
641
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Hence, there is no merit in the submission of the appellants that
the order rejecting the 2nd application u/s.319 of the CrPC was
set aside by the High Court without providing any opportunity of
hearing to them. [Paras 114, 115(g)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Object, Purpose
and Scope:
Held: s.319 has been included in the statute book with the object
of ensuring effective administration of justice - The legislature
enacted s.319 to eliminate any situation wherein the courts would
feel helpless in proceeding against any person who appears to be
guilty of committing an offence, more particularly, in cases where
the investigating agency or prosecution files chargesheet only
against a few persons in relation to an offence and leaves out a
few others either intentionally or unintentionally - The said section
empowers the courts to proceed with persons who are not the
accused before it, upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed
in the provision - The intention behind giving a wide interpretation
to s.319 is to ensure that the perpetrator of a crime does not get
away unpunished - The legislature incorporated the provision with
the purpose of empowering the courts to find out the real culprits
without getting hindered by procedural impediments so that the
guilty does not go unpunished. [Paras 34, 37]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sub-section (1) to s.319 -
Essential requirements:
Held: A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of s.319 brings out three
essential requirements that must be fulfilled for invoking the powers
thereunder: a. First, there must be an ongoing inquiry or trial in
respect of the original accused person(s); and b. Secondly, in
the course of such proceedings, evidence must have come on
record to show that any person other than the original accused
has committed any offence; and c. Thirdly, the person sought to
be summoned could be tried together with the original accused
for such offence. [Para 39]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Summoning order
u/s.319 of CrPC - When a person was not chargesheeted by
the investigating agency:
Held: A summoning order issued u/s.319 of the CrPC cannot be
quashed only on the ground that even though the proposed accused
642
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
were named in the FIR or complaint, the police did not include
their names in the chargesheet - In other words, if the evidence
tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial shows that any person
not being the accused has committed any offence for which he
could be tried together with the accused, he can be summoned
to face trial even though he may not have been chargesheeted
by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an
earlier stage. [Para 44]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sub-section (4) of s.319:
Held: Sub-section (4) of s.319 mandates that a fresh trial or a de
novo trial is to be conducted in respect of the persons summoned
under sub-section (1) so as to ensure that such persons are not
deprived of the opportunity to present their case and examine
the witnesses properly - The requirement of a de novo trial in
sub-section (4)(a) is quite different from the notion of a split up or
separate trial as provided u/s.317 of the CrPC - The provision of
a de novo trial is to safeguard the right of fair trial to be provided
to the new persons summoned u/s.319(1). [Para 45]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Stage at which
power u/s.319 of the CrPC can be exercised - Discussed.
[Paras 47-60]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Meaning of the
expression "could be tried together with the accused" -
Discussed. [Paras 61-68]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Mechanism for
exercise of powers u/s.319 in cases where the trial is over but
the revisional order relates back to the date of the rejection
of an application under the said section by the Trial Court:
Held: In cases where the trial is over but the revisional order
relates back to the date of the rejection of an application under
the said section by the Trial Court - It is axiomatic that in such a
case there is no occasion for a joint trial to be conducted with the
original accused persons - Therefore, when the order of the High
Court passed in revision after the conclusion of trial relates back to
the order of the Trial Court passed before the conclusion of trial, it
must be taken to mean that the new accused would be proceeded
against in a separate trial - Such a situation shall be governed by
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
643
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
the guidelines provided in Sukhpal Singh Khaira case - There is
no requirement for a decision by the Trial Court on the question
of separation of trial in cases like the present one since the trial
has already concluded in respect of the original accused and the
only manner in which the order of the High Court can be given
effect to is by proceeding in a separate trial qua the new accused
persons. [Para 96]
Case Law Cited
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [2022] 10 SCR 156 :
(2023) 1 SCC 289 - followed.
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi [1983] 1 SCR
884 : (1983) 1 SCC 1; Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar [1993] 1 SCR
31 : (1993) 2 SCC 16; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014]
2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92; R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State
represented by Inspector of Police & Ors. [2015] 5 SCR 605 :
(2015) 7 SCC 497; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [2012] 7 SCR
988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460; Maru Ram v. Union of India [1981] 1
SCR 1196 : (1981) 1 SCC 107; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v.
Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1970] 1 SCR 322 : (1969) 2 SCC 74;
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders [1975] 3
SCR 958 : (1975) 1 SCC 770; Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of
Maharashtra [2001] 2 SCR 878 : (2001) 5 SCC 453; Yashodhan
Singh v. State of U.P. [2023] 10 SCR 1196 : (2023) 9 SCC 108;
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel
[2012] 8 SCR 1015 : (2012) 10 SCC 517 - relied on.
Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. [2002] 3 SCR
400 : (2002) 5 SCC 738; Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh v.
Satish Atmaraman Talekar & Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 625; Sarojben
Ashwinkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat [2011] 9 SCR 1138 : (2011)
13 SCC 316; Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2487; Raj Kishore Prasad v. State
of Bihar [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 125 : (1996) 4 SCC 495; Suman v.
State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 250; U.J.S. Chopra v. State of
Bombay [1955] 2 SCR 94 : 1955 SCC OnLine SC 57; Ramesh
Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992) Supp. 2 SCC 623 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Law Commission of India, 41st Report.
644
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898.
List of Keywords
Section 319 of CrPC; Revisional jurisdiction of High Court;
Expression "could be tried together with the accused; Stage of
summoning u/s.319 of CrPC; Opportunity of hearing; Stay of trial;
De novo trial; Right of fair trial; Stay on trial.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1184 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2024 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in A482 no. 2399 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Anshuman, Shaantanu Devansh,
Ms. Rudrali Patil, Ayush Shrivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX ...............................................................................
3
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ........................ 11
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ...................... 20
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
645
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
D.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .......................................................... 25
E.
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 26
(i)
Legislative history, ingredients and scope of Section 319
of the CrPC ................................................................................. 26
(ii)
Stage at which power under Section 319 of the CrPC can
be exercised ............................................................................... 39
(iii)
Meaning of the expression "could be tried together with the
accused" ..................................................................................... 54
(iv)
Peculiar facts of the present case not fully covered by the
guidelines issued by this Court in its decisions in Sukhpal
Singh Khaira and Hardeep Singh ............................................. 59
(v)
Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revision
jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting
the second application preferred by the respondent no. 2
under section 319 of the CrPC? ............................................... 61
(vi)
The order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revision
jurisdiction would relate back to and replace the order passed
by the Trial Court rejecting the application under Section
319 of the CrPC .......................................................................... 65
(vii) Right of the proposed accused to be heard at the stage of
summoning under Section 319 of CrPC .................................. 87
F.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 93
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 01.04.2024
in Criminal Application No. 2399 of 2024 filed by the appellants
herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(the "CrPC") by which the High Court rejected the application and
thereby affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning
the appellants herein as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC in
the Session Trial No. 582 of 2009.
646
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.
On 14.04.2009, the respondent no. 2 herein lodged a First Information
Report ("FIR") No. 99/2009 in the Police Station Bilgram, Hardoi,
Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as the "IPC") respectively against five persons namely Irshad, Irfan,
Abdul, Jamin and Akil in connection with the murder of his brother.
The FIR alleged that the appellants herein namely, Jamin and Akil
exhorted the other co-accused to kill the deceased and as a result
of such instigation, the said co-accused fired at the deceased using
their pistols resulting into his death.
4.
On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet no.
07/2009 dated 14.07.2009 against two accused persons, namely
Irshad and Irfan for the alleged offence. The police by way of Parcha
No. CD 16 dated 14.07.2009 informed the court concerned that the
investigation qua the remaining accused persons, namely Abdul,
Jamin and Akil was ongoing. The chargesheet contained a list of
18 witnesses which the State proposed to examine in support of
the charges.
5.
On 27.10.2009, the Trial Court framed charge for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC respectively against the
accused persons who were named in the chargesheet who in turn
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.
While the trial against the chargesheeted accused persons namely
Irshad and Irfan was in progress, the respondent no. 2 filed an
application under Section 319 of the CrPC praying to summon the
other three persons named in the FIR to face the trial along with the
chargesheeted accused persons.
7.
On 29.01.2010, the Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on
the ground that a person could be summoned by the trial court in
exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC provided that
there is cogent and reliable evidence indicating towards the complicity
of such person in the commission of an offence for which he could
be tried together with the accused persons already put to trial. The
Trial Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 respectively had yet not been
cross-examined and it was not clear whether the I.O. intended to file
chargesheet against the persons sought to be summoned, therefore
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
647
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
it declined the prayer to summon under Section 319 of the CrPC. The
relevant extracts from the said order are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Hence, from the aforesaid principles it is cleared that till
date, cross examination of Pw-1 & Pw-2 has not been done
and it is also not cleared that the chargesheet against the
application by the accused u/s 319 CrPC is being filed or
not Investigation have been completed or not and if final
report have been filed then is it pending in Add District
Court or till now investigation is going on? Whenever it
would not be cleared and until and unless such evidence
has not been filed by prosecution that such evidence
against proposed accused is enough to punished the
them until then summoned to accused is not justifiable.
Hence, application not accepted and is deserved to be
dismissed/rejected."
8.
A revision petition bearing no. 203 of 2010 was filed by the respondent
no. 2 before the High Court against the order of the Trial Court dated
29.01.2010 referred to above. The High Court vide order dated
14.05.2010 directed the Trial Court to reconsider the prayer of the
respondent no. 2 for summoning the proposed accused persons
under Section 319 of the CrPC after the cross-examination of PW-1
and PW-2 respectively was over. In the meantime, the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded on 01.12.2009, 02.04.2010 and
15.05.2010 respectively. The relevant extracts from the said order
are reproduced hereinbelow:
"It appears that the revisionist is the complainant and his
petition under section 319 CrPC for summoning additional
accused has been rejected by the court concerned on
the ground that cross-examination of PW-1 and 2 had
not taken place.
The learned trial court is expected to consider the
revisionist's prayer after the cross-examination is over.
With the aforesaid observation, the revision is finally
disposed of."
9.
Thereafter, on 10.06.2010, the respondent no. 2 filed a second
application under Section 319 of the CrPC before the Trial Court
with a prayer to summon the three persons named in the FIR as
648
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
accused in addition to the accused persons named in the chargesheet.
The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hardoi vide order dated
19.07.2010 rejected the said application on the ground that the
evidence recorded in the course of the trial did not warrant the
summoning of the said three persons as accused. The Trial Court
noted that that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 of the
CrPC, it is necessary to see whether there is sufficient and cogent
evidence to take cognizance and if not, then the persons sought to be
summoned as accused cannot be asked to face the trial. The Court
observed that the complainant had no idea as regards the identity
of the proposed accused persons, namely, Abdul, Jamin and Akil
and no explanation was forthcoming as to how their names came
to be included in the FIR.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, the respondent no. 2
preferred revision petition bearing no. 400/2010 before the High
Court seeking to challenge the order dated 19.07.2010.
11. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Hardoi vide the judgment and order dated
19.10.2011, held Irshad and Irfan guilty of the offence of murder and
sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine. The trial accordingly
stood concluded.
12. Long after the conclusion of the trial, the High Court, though aware
of conclusion of the trial of the co-accused, set aside the order of the
Trial Court dated 19.07.2010, vide order dated 14.09.2021 passed
in criminal revision petition no. 400/2010, while observing as under:
a.
First, merely on the basis of a statement made by a prosecution
witness that not a single person in the village was known to
him, the Trial Court could not have concluded that the proposed
accused were not present at the scene of the crime; and
b.
Secondly, no final report was submitted by the police against
the proposed accused, exonerating them from the alleged
crime. The High Court held that a person not named in the
FIR or if named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, could be
summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC if the court was
prima facie satisfied that such person had also committed the
offence and he could be tried along with the other accused for
the alleged offence on the basis of the evidence recorded in
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
649
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
the course of inquiry into or trial of an offence. In light of the
aforesaid observations, the High Court allowed the revision
petition and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application
under Section 319 of the CrPC submitted by the complainant
(the respondent no. 2 herein) within three months from the
date of its order.
The relevant observations made by the High Court are
reproduced herein below:
"8 The proposed accused are named in the FIR.
The plaintiff has been examined as PW-1, he has
confirmed the statements in his FIR. Just because
he said that he did not know anyone by name in that
village, it cannot be assumed that he did not know
the proposed accused. In the cross-examination he
was not specifically asked to identify the proposed
accused, in such a situation it cannot be justified to
conclude that he did not know the proposed accused.
It is noteworthy here that the original trial has been
completed and the accused have been found guilty.
Annexure-1, submitted along with the supplementary
affidavit dated 24.11.2020 submitted by the reviewer,
is reflected in the copy of the decision.
[...]
In the light of the legal principles propounded by the
Honorable Supreme Court and the above analysis, it
is clear that the impugned order passed by the trial
court is erroneous, because on the basis of mere
statement of PW that he did not know any person in
the village by name before the incident. Considering
that he did not even know the proposed accused and
the investigation against the proposed accused seems
to be prevalent, neither the final report was given
against them nor the rejection of the chargesheet
application cannot be called legal and justified, as a
result deserves to be set aside.
9 This revision is accepted. The impugned order dated
19.07.2010 passed by the trial court is set aside. The
650
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
trial court is ordered to again consider the application
submitted by the plaintiff under Section 319 CrPC in
the light of all the evidence and well-established legal
principles and pass an order as per law within three
months of receiving the copy of the order."
13. On the strength of the order passed by the High Court referred
to above, the respondent no. 2 filed another application dated
22.09.2021 under Section 319 of the CrPC before the Additional
District and Session Judge and prayed to summon the proposed
accused in the trial. The Additional District and Sessions Judge vide
order dated 21.02.2024 allowed the said application on the ground
that the oral evidence of the witnesses recorded by the Trial Court
clearly revealed the involvement of the proposed accused, viz.,
Abdul, Jamin and Akil along with the accused who stood convicted.
Since one of the proposed accused namely, Abdul had passed away,
the court summoned Jamin and Akil to face the trial.
14. The appellants being dissatisfied with the summoning order,
challenged the same by filing an application under Section 482 of
the CrPC and prayed that the order be quashed and set aside. The
challenge to the summoning order was essentially on the ground that
the appellants had been summoned in a trial which stood concluded
on 19.10.2011 that is, almost 13 years before the summoning order
was passed.
15. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, rejected
the aforesaid application of the appellants filed under Section 482
of the CrPC and thereby affirmed the summoning order passed by
the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The High Court held
that Section 319(4) of the CrPC provides that where the court
proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) of Section 319,
the proceedings in respect of such person is supposed to commence
afresh and the witnesses are to be re-heard with respect to the
proposed accused so summoned. The conclusion of trial against the
other accused persons would not cause any prejudice to the appellants
as they would be afforded an opportunity to defend themselves in a
fresh trial. In view of the aforesaid, the High Court found no illegality
in the order summoning the appellants herein under Section 319 of
the CrPC. The relevant observations made by the High Court are
reproduced hereinbelow:
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
651
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
"27.⁠ ⁠ln the present case, the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2
have stated about that the previously tried accused had
shot at the victim at the exhortation of the applicant. The
trial stands concluded by the judgment and order dated
19.10.2011 wherein it was held that the accused persons
Irshad and Irfan created an unlawful assembly with the
other accused persons and they killed the deceased Arif
by shooting at him with a firearm. In case the aforesaid
evidence remains unrebutted, the same would lead to
conviction of the applicant.
28.⁠ ⁠Therefore, there is no illegality in the order summoning
the applicant under Section 319 CrPC.
29.⁠ ⁠Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to secure
the ends of justice. Non-summoning of accused persons
against whom there was ample evidence warranting their
trial, would defeat the ends of justice. The order rejecting
the application under Section 319 CrPC was set aside by
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and it
is only thereafter, that the trial Court has summoned the
applicants under Section 319 CrPC. Any interference with
the order summoning the applicants to face trial would in
fact defeat the ends of justice, which would be contrary
to the object for which the inherent powers of this Court
are meant to be exercised.
30.⁠ ⁠In view of the foregoing discussion, the application
filed under Section 482 CrPC lacks merit and the same
is hereby dismissed."
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
16. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants addressed himself on the following questions:
(i)
Whether the Trial Court could have entertained an application
filed under Section 319 of the CrPC almost twelve years after
the conclusion of the main trial and in the absence of any
proceedings pending before it?
652
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(ii)
Whether the application under Section 319 of the CrPC dated
22.09.2021 could have been filed by the respondent no. 2 on
the strength of the order of the High Court dated 14.09.2021?
(iii) Whether the order dated 14.09.2021 could have been passed
by the High Court without issuing notice to the appellants?
(iv) What is the effect of the conclusion of the trial on the revision
petition pending before the High Court, more particularly when
the proceedings of trial were not stayed by the High Court?
(v)
Whether there was sufficient material on record to summon the
appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC?
17. As regards the question whether the Trial Court could have entertained
the application filed under Section 319 of the CrPC after the conclusion
of the trial, the learned counsel made the following submissions:
a)
The conditions for the exercise of power by the Trial Court
under Section 319(1) of the CrPC are:
(i)
that there must be any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence;
(ii)
that in course of that inquiry or trial, it must appear from
the evidence that any person, who is not the accused,
has committed any offence for which he could be tried
together with the accused.
If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the person sought
to be summoned can be asked to appear "in the course of
any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence". In other words, the
summoning order should be passed at a stage anterior to the
date of pronouncement of the judgment, in the trial.
b)
However, in the present matter, the application under
Section 319 of the CrPC, which was allowed vide order
dated 21.02.2024, was made 13 years after the judgment &
order of conviction of the chargesheeted accused persons.
Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi could not
have exercised its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC as
he became functus officio with the passing of the order of
conviction and sentence.
c)
The High Court failed to take into consideration the law laid
down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Singh Khaira v.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
653
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289 wherein it was
held that the summoning order under Section 319 of the CrPC
had to be necessarily passed before the order of sentence is
passed where a finding of conviction was returned. Accordingly,
the appellants could not have been summoned by the Trial
Court in 2024, long after the conclusion of the proceedings of
Sessions Trial No. 582 of 2009 resulting into conviction and
sentence of life imprisonment being passed against the original
accused, namely Irshad and Irfan. Therefore, the order dated
21.02.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Hardoi was not merely a procedural lapse but rather a
violation of the substantive rights of the appellants.
d)
The respondent no. 2 also failed to inform the Trial Court about
the pendency of the Revision Petition no. 400/2010 before the
High Court and the High Court was also not informed about
the conclusion of trial qua the chargesheeted accused persons.
e)
The decision of this Court in Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar
Singh & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 738 is distinguishable
from the present case as having been passed in a very
different set of facts and thus would not come to the aid of the
respondents. The facts in Shashikant Singh (supra) were
that a revision petition was preferred against the order of the
Trial Court allowing the application under Section 319 of the
CrPC and summoning the proposed accused. Thereafter, the
trial came to be concluded during the pendency of the revision
petition. In Shashikant Singh (supra), the application under
Section 319 was allowed at a time when the Trial Court still
had the jurisdiction and therefore, the matter was remanded
by this Court to the High Court for fresh consideration on
merits. However, contrary to the facts in Shashikant Singh
(supra), in the present matter, the Revision Petition no. 400
of 2010 was preferred by the respondent no. 2 against the
order of the Trial Court rejecting the application under Section
319 on merits. Thus, while in Shashikant Singh (supra) the
summoning order was issued during the pendency of the trial,
in the present case the summoning order came to be issued
long after the conclusion of the trial and is, thus, bad in law
as the Trial Court became functus officio with the conclusion
of the trial and could not have passed the summoning order.
654
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
f)
Further, this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab reported
in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has held that the powers under Section
319 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly. The evidence
on record warranting exercise of this power must be such that
if it goes unrebutted then it would lead to a conviction. In the
present case, the appellants were named in the FIR and were
subjected to investigation and yet were not arrayed as accused
in the chargesheet dated 14.07.2009.
g)
The record of the Trial Court indicates that the investigation
qua the appellants was closed for want of sufficient material
against them and therefore the investigating officer decided not
to file chargesheet against the appellants.
h)
The oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, before the
Trial Court also failed to inspire any confidence for the purpose
of summoning the appellants as the testimony of PW-1 was not
believable. It was pointed out that PW-1 himself had deposed
that he did not know anyone from the village to which the
appellants belonged and the testimony of PW-2 by itself could
not have been relied upon as the respondent no. 2 did not name
himself as an eye-witness in his complaint or in his statement
recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC or in his substantive
evidence before the court.
18. As regards the question whether the High Court could have passed
the order dated 14.09.2021 without issuing notice and granting an
opportunity of being heard to the appellants, the counsel made the
following submissions:
a)
Upon rejection of the application under Section 319 of the
CrPC dated 10.06.2010 by the Trial Court, the respondent no.
2 preferred Revision Petition no. 400 of 2010 before the High
Court. However, contrary to the settled position of law, the
appellants were not joined as parties to the said revision petition.
b)
Further, the said revision petition remained pending for 11 years
before the High Court and in the interregnum, the appellants
were not heard at any stage. Therefore, the order directing the
Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319 came
to be passed on 14.09.2021 without affording the appellants
any opportunity to be heard.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
655
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
c)
The order dated 14.09.2021 could be said to be contrary to
the law laid down by this Court in Manharbhai Muljibhai
Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012)
10 SCC 517 and Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Satish
Atmaraman Talekar & Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 625
wherein the right to be heard has been recognised and it was
held that an opportunity of hearing is to be mandatorily granted
to a proposed accused in revisional proceedings.
19. As regards the question pertaining to the legal effect of the conclusion
of trial on the revision proceedings pending before the High Court,
more particularly when the High Court had not stayed the proceedings
of the trial, the counsel submitted the following:
a)
Upon conclusion of trial, as a natural corollary, any interim
proceedings arising therefrom would come to an end as the
Trial Court becomes functus officio unless a specific stay on
such trial proceeding has been granted by a higher court.
b)
In the present matter, the Trial Court became functus officio on
19.10.2011 i.e., the date on which it pronounced the judgment
of conviction and sentence against the original accused persons
namely, Irshad and Irfan, and was thereafter shorn of the
jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application under Section
319 of the CrPC as no proceedings were pending before it.
As such, no order for summoning the appellants could have
been passed by the Trial Court, especially because the High
Court in its revisional jurisdiction had not passed any order
for staying the trial proceedings or restraining the Trial Court
from pronouncing the final judgment against the other accused
persons during the pendency of the revision petition
c)
The principle that the Trial Court cannot exercise its powers
under Section 319 of the CrPC after conclusion of the trial has
been duly recognized by this Court in its decision in Sukhpal
Singh Khaira (supra).
20. As regards the question whether there was sufficient material on
record to summon the appellants to face trial, the counsel submitted
as follows:
a)
No chargesheet had been filed against the appellants nor was
any evidence adduced to point towards the involvement of the
appellants in the alleged offence.
656
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
b)
The application under Section 319 of the CrPC was not preferred
by the prosecution but by the complainant.
c)
The Case Diary No. 19 dated 05.09.2009 also recorded that
action against Abdul, Jamin and Akil was not required as their
presence at the spot of the crime had not been confirmed.
d)
The second application under Section 319 of the CrPC dated
10.06.2010 was rejected by the Trial Court inter alia on the
ground that upon examination of PW-1, it became evident
that the complainant did not know the appellants herein and
no explanation had been offered as to how the complainant
mentioned their names in the FIR.