Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court was correct in rejecting the application under s.319, as the power is discretionary, extraordinary, and requires concrete evidence linking the person to the offence, which was absent in this case.

Summary

The case arose from an FIR in which three persons were arraigned as accused, while the appellants were not. Witnesses 1‑3 only testified to the appellants' presence, without attributing any specific role, and after the prosecution evidence was closed, two additional witnesses (4 and 5) were examined under s.311 CrPC. The appellants then filed an application under s.319 CrPC seeking to be added as accused on the ground of "new evidence"; the trial court rejected the application, but the Sessions Judge and the High Court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court examined the scope of s.319, emphasizing that it is an extraordinary, discretionary power to be used sparingly and only when concrete evidence shows the person committed the offence and can be tried with the existing accused. It held that the mere presence of the appellants, without any specific incriminating act, and the lack of new material after s.313, did not satisfy the requirement for invoking s.319. Consequently, the Court set aside the revisional orders and upheld the trial court's rejection, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

What is the scope and discretion of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Does the evidence of witnesses 4 and 5, or the mere presence of the appellants, constitute sufficient "new evidence" to justify adding the appellants as accused under s.319?
Is the timing of the application under s.319 proper, given that earlier witnesses had already testified to the appellants' presence?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 169, s. 311, s. 313, s. 319

Subjects

Section 319 CrPCdiscretionary poweraddition of accusedevidencecriminal proceduresuo motu jurisdictionappeal

Judgment

j
GURIYA@TABASSUM TAUQUIR AND ORS. A
~ V.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
B
{DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)

. )-
Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 319-Nature and scope of-Held: The power under the c
provision is discretionary and extraordinary-It can be exercised by
Court suo motu as well as on application-Court has the jurisdiction
to direct trial of a person not an accused before it-But such
jurisdiction has to be used sparingly and only when compelling reasons
exist for such action. D
s. 319-Trial ofaccused-Not originally arraigned as accused-
-.." Permissibility-Trial sought on the basis of evidence of witness
examined on permission ofCourt after closure ofprosecution evidence
and recording of statement of accused-Evidence of PWs not
attributing specific roles to the accused-Held: Trial ofthe accused is E
not permissible in the facts ofthe case.
s. 319(4)(l)(b)-Cognizance ofaccused-Subsequently added in
trial-Held: Cognizance would be presumed to have. been taken in
~· respect of such person by virtue of legal fiction created under the F
provision-Cognizance.

Words and Phrases- 'Evidence '-Meaning of in the context of
s. 319Cr.P.C.

On a complaint, three persons were arraigned as accused and the G
~ appellants herein were not arraigned as accused. PWs 1, 2 and 3, in
their evidence, had stated only about the presence ofthe appellants and
no definite roles were ascribed to them. After closure of prosecution
evidence and after examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., an
385 H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] IO S.C.R.
,
__

A application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed and on its being allowed two more
witnesses namely PWs 4 and 5 were examined. Thereafter an application
u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking trial of the appellants herein, in view
of examination of PWs 4 and 5 new evidence has surfaced requiring
their trial Trial Court rejected the application holding that no such case
B was made out However in their revisionaljurisdiction, Sessions Judge
as well as High Court held that there were materials against the
appellants, on the basis ofwhich his trial was required. Hence the present
appeal.

C Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a careful reading of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. as well as the
law laid down by this Court, it becomes clear that the trial court has
undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before
- it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is
D satisfied at any stage of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that
the persons who have not been arraigned as accused should face the _;,
_

trial. [Para 13] I"

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State ofPunjab and Anr., AIR (1979)
E SC 339 and Municipal Corporation ofDelhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and
Ors., [1983] 1SCC1, relied on.
1.2. It is further evident that such person even though had initially
been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can
F also be added to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to
add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced
before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet
or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet
or the case diary do not constitute evidence. The position of an accused
G who has been discharged stands on a different footing.
[Para 13] [394-H; 395-A]

Sohan Lal and Ors. v. State ofRajasthan, AIR (1990) SC 2158, relied
on.

H 13. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court
GURIYA@TABASSUM TAUQUIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 387

suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already A
~
before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has
committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused.
The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised
judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the B
Court and should be used very sparingly and only ifcompelling reasons
exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not
')-
been taken earlier. [Para 14) [395-D-E)
~
Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation and c
Anr., (2000] 3 SCC 262 and Krishnappa v. State ofKarnataka, (2004] 7
sec 792, relied on.
1.4. The word "evidence" in Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates
evidence ofwitnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the
aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed D
·\..
that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court
'"' took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1 )(b) a
legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been
taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. [Para 141 [395-E-F) E'

Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh andAnr., (2002) 5 SCC 738
and Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr., AIR (2006) SC 1892, relied on
,..i..._ 2.1. The Trial Court had rightly rejected the application filed under
F
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The factual position ofthe present case goes to show
that there was no new material after examination of the accused persons
under Section 313 Cr.P .C., which threw any light on the incident. The
evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is not the basis of the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. as they have not spoken anything aboutthe appellants.
G
[Paras 15 and 17) (396-E; 395-G-H)

2.2. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have stated aboutthe presence of the appellants
without any definite role being ascribed to them in their evidence
recorded on three occasions. Ifreally the complainant had any grievance
H
\
- _.(

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A about the appellants being not made accused, that could have, at the
most, be done immediately after the recording ofevidence ofPWs ·1, 2
and 3. That has apparently not been done. Additionally,afterthe charge-
sheet was filed, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and it
was dismissed. No explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why
B the application in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not filed earlier.
Nothing has been stated about the appellants by PWs 4 and 5.
(Para 16] (396-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1305of2007.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Revision No. 745 of2004.
S. Wasim A Qadri and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants.
D Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, Rituraj Biswas and Shashi Bhushan Kumar
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
2. The appellants call in question legality of the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the Criminal
Revision filed by them. Challenge before the High Court was to the
revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
F Court No.I, Motihari. By order dated 10.09.2004, learned Additional
Sessions Judge set aside the order ofleained Judicial Magistrate, Motihari
in G.R. No.996of99/Tr. No.693 of 2004.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
G FIR was lodged on 29.05 .1999 by Manzoor Baitha alleging that his
parents, brother and sisters had a fight with his family members. Annu 'f
Siddiqui hit on the head of his son Akbar Hawari with the butt of a pistol
and he also snatched away a wrist watch of his son. Cognizance was taken
on 27.9.1999 and charge-sheet was filed on 09.09.1999. Charges were
H framed on 14.3.2000. Only three persons were arrayed as accused
I
c GURIYA@TABASSUM TAUQUIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 389
[PASAYAT,J.]
persons and the present appellants were not arrayed as accused. It A
-{ appears that a protest petition was filed before charges were framed on
14.03.2000 but the same was rejected. Recording of prosecution
evidence commenced on 16.04.2001 and continued till 29.04.2002. The
prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused
persons was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal B
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C. ') on 19.02.2003. Thereafter on
07.05.2003, an application in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed and
., was allowed and two more witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 were examined.
)
An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.01.2004 stating
that new evidence has surfaced which requires the trial of the present c
appellants. It is to be noted that PWs 4 and 5 were examined on 6.1.2004
pursuant to the order in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Trial
Court holding that no case was made out for putting the appellants on
trial. Learned Sessions Judge was moved for revision and the same was D
allowed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed on the ground
~ that there are materials against the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was nothing but an abuse of process of the
court as the narration of facts above would go to show. Every possible E
attempt was made to introduce materials against the appellants which were
not on record. Even after the examination of the accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C., an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Two
...,,,.... witnesses were examined on 6.1.2004. Even their evidence in no way
connects the appellants to the alleged incident. PWs 1, 2 and 3, who F
were examined on 16.04.2001, 8.01.2002 and 29.04.2002 merely stated
about the alleged presence of the appellants. No definite role was ascribed
to them. Therefore, the application in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was
not maintainable and in any event was ma/a fide.
G
"~, 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution has
not filed any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It was only PW-1,
the informant who had filed such an application. Learned counsel for the
complainant-respondent No. 2 submitted that the appellants were named
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A in the FIR. PWs 1, 2 and 3 spoke about their presence. Therefore, they
should have been arrayed as accused persons. )-
6. The parameters for dealing with an application under Section 319
Cr.P .C. have been laid down by this Court in several ·cases.
B 7. In Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Anr., [2000] 3 SCC 262 it was observed as follows:;.
"The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that
it should appear fo the court from the evidence collected during
trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned
c as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which
that person could be tried together with the accused already
arraign~d. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt,
from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the
offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction
D
from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First
is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that
for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with
the already arraigned accused.
E But even then what is conferred on the court is only a discretion
as could be discerned from the words "the court may proceed
against such person." The discretionary power so conferred should
be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court
should tum against another person whenever it comes across
F evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A
judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case,
including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and
the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of
time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must
G be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to
proceed against other persons.
The court while deciding whether to invoke the power under
Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other
constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that
H
(_
I

GURIY A@ TABASSUM TAUQUIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 391
[PASAYAT, J.]
proceedings in respect of newly-added persons shall be A
commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole
proceedings must be recommended from the beginning of the trial,
summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-
examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached
earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number B
the court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be
achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour
already undertaken. Unless the court is hopeful that there is a
reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly-brought
accused ending in being convicted of the offence concerned we C
would say that the court should refrain from adopting such a course
of action"
8. Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr., [2002] 5 SCC
738, it was, inter-alia observed as follows:-
D
"The intention of the provision here is that where in the course
of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears to the court
from the evidence that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence, the courts may proceed against him for the
offence which he appears to have committed. At that stage, the E
court would consider that such a person could be tried together
with the accused who is already before the court facing the trial.
The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the
proceedings right from the beginning have mandatorily to be
commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. In short, there has F
to be a de nova trial against him. The provision of de nova trial is
mandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a person so brought before
the court. It would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses
for the cross-examination of such a person. They have to be
examined afresh. Fresh examination-in-chief and not only their G
presentation for the purpose of the cross-examination of the newly
added accused is the mandate of Section 319(4). The words "could
be tried together with the accused" in Section 319(1 ), appear to
be only directory. "Could be" cannot under these circumstances be
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A held to be "must be". The provision cannot be interpreted to mean
that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the oourt
has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot
be tried together with the accused whc was before the court when
order under Section 319(1) was passed, the order would become
B ineffective and inoperative, nuJlifying the opinion earlier fonned by
the court on the basis of the evidence before it that the newly added
person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order ---(
~
for his being brought before the court."
C 9. Again in Krishnappa v. State ofKarnataka, [2004] 7 SCC 792,
it was observed as follows:-
"It has been repeatedly held that the power to summon an
accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the court and
should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist
D for tal<lng cognizance against the other person against whom action
has not been taken.
In the present case, we need not go into the question whether
. prima facie the evidence implicates the appellant or not and
whether the possibility of his conviction is remote, or his presence
E
and instigation stood established, for in our view the exercise of
discretion by the Magistrate, in any event of the matter, did not
·call for interference by the High Court, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
F In Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation
construing the words "the court may proceed against such person"
in Section 319 CrPC, this Court held that the power is
discretionary and should be exercised only to achieve criminal
justice and that the court should not turn against another person
G whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person
also with the offence. This Court further held that a judicial exercise
is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage
at which the trial has already proceeded and the quantum of '
evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the
H
}--
GURIYA@ TABASSUM TAUQUIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 393
[PASAYAT,J.]
Court had spent for collecting such evidence. The court, while A
examining an application under Section 319 CrPC, has also to bear
in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed
against other persons. In a nutshell, it means that for exercise of
discretion under Section 319 CrPC, all relevant factors, including
the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is B
not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that
some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought
to be added as an accused.
Applying the test as aforesaid to the facts of the present case, C
in our view, the trial Magistrate is right in rejecting the application.
The incident was of the year 1993. Seventeen witnesses had been
examined. The statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC
had been recorded. The role attributed to the appellant, as per the
impugned judgment of the High Court, was of instigation. Having D
regard to these facts coupled with the quashing of proceedings in
the year 1995 against the appellant, it could not be held that the
discretion was illegally exercised by the Trial Magistrate so as to ..
call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by thts·High
Court."
E
I 0. The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code have been
elucidated in several decisions of this Court. In Joginder Singh and Anr.
v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 339, it was observed:
"6. A plain reading of Sec. 319(1) which occurs in Chapter F
XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials,
clearly shows that it applies to all the Courts including a Sessions
Court and as such a Sessions Court will have the power to add
any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there
appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement G
in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with
the other accused; ....... "

11. It was further observed in paragraph 9:
"9. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being H
\
\
-~
' -
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A the accused' occurred in Sec. 319 excludes from its operation an ~

>-
accused who has been released by the police under Sec. 169 of
the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet,
the contention has merely to be stated to he rejected. The said
expression clearly covers any person who is riot being tried already
B by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision
like Sec. 319( 1) clearly shows that even persons who have been
dropped by the police during investigation but against whom -{
evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before "
~

the Criminal Court are included in the said expression."
c
12. In .Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi
and Ors., [1983] 1 SCC 1 after referring to the decision in Joginder
Singh 's case (supra), it was observed:-
"19. In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at
D any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other
accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against
whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the
offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them
"al,ong with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that
E this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the
Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling
reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against
whom action has not been taken. More than this we would not
like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the 'entire matter ...-?:
F to the discretion of the Court concerned so that it may act
according to law. We would, however, make it plain that the mere
fact that the proceedings have been quashed against respondent
Nos. 2 to 5 will not prevent the court from exercising its discretion
if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against them
G has been made out on the additional evidence led before it."
ti '1
13. On a careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as the
aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted
jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the 'I

H trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage
GURIYA @ TABASSUM TAUQUIR v. STATE OF BIHAR 395
[PASAYAT, J.]
of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that the persons who have A
not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is fwther evident that
such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an
accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. The
trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on
the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials B
available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials
contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.
Of course, as evident from the decision reported in Sohan Lal and Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1990) SC 2158 the position of an accused
who has been discharged stands on a different footing. C
14. Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the
Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already
before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed
an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is D
discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard
~ to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an
extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used
very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against
a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word E
"evidence" in Section 319 contemplates evidence.of witnesses given in
Court. Under Sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is
specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person
had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the
~- offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show F
that by virtue of Sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that
cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added
accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr., AIR
(2006) SC 1892)
15. The factual position noted above goes to show that there was G
" no new material after examination of the accused persons under Section
313 Cr.P.C., which threw any light on ti.tie incident. The evidence of PWs
4 and 5 is not the basis of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as
they have not spoken anything about the appellants.
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 16. As noted above, PWs 1,2 and 3 have stated about the presence
of the appellants without any definite role being ascribed to them in their >-
evidence recorded on 16.04.2001, 08.01.2002 and 29.04.2002. If really
the complainant had any grievance about the appellants being not made
accused, that could have, at the most, be done immediately after the
B recording of evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3. That has apparently not been
done. Additionally, after the charge-sheet was filed, a protest petition was
filed by the complainant which was dismissed. No explanation whatsoever
has been offered as to why the application in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
was not filed earlier. The revisional court did not deal with these aspects
i
c and came to an abrupt conclusion that all the PWs have stated that the
appellants have committed overt acts and their names also find place in
the protest petition. Undisputedly, no overt act has been attributed to the
appellants by PWs 1, 2 and 3. Nothing has been stated about the
appellants by PWs 4 and 5. There was mention of their names in the FIR
D A protest petition was filed. Same was also rejected. These could not
have formed the basis of accepting the prayer in terms of Section 319
~
Cr.P.C. The High Court's order, to say the least, is bereft of any ,J

foundation. It merely states that there are materials against the petitioners
before it. It also did not deal with various aspects highlighted above.
E
17. Above being the position, the order of the High Court and that
of learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be maintained and are set
aside. The Trial Court had rightly rejected the application filed under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
->,,
F 18. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.