Judgement Briefs

Criminal Procedure Code

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana

(2014) 3 SCC 306

Citation
(2014) 3 SCC 306
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
18 July 2013
Bench
P. Sathasivam CJ, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde JJ. (Constitution Bench)

Facts

  • Police investigated a serious offence and filed a charge-sheet against some persons.
  • Other persons named or implicated in the materials were not sent up for trial.
  • The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 CrPC.
  • The Sessions Court considered whether it could summon the persons omitted by police immediately upon committal.
  • Earlier decisions differed on whether the Sessions Court had to:
  • wait until evidence was recorded and then use Section 319; or
  • take cognizance and summon them at the outset under Section 193.
  • A Constitution Bench resolved the issue.

Issue

  • Whether the Sessions Court may summon additional accused at the stage of committal.
  • Whether it must wait for trial evidence under Section 319.
  • What powers the Magistrate possesses regarding persons not charge-sheeted.

Rule

  • A Magistrate receiving a police report may:
  • take cognizance against persons sent up;
  • take cognizance against other persons disclosed by the material;
  • or commit the sessions-triable case.
  • Once committed, the Court of Session may take cognizance of the offence under Section 193.
  • The Sessions Court is not confined to the police’s list of accused.
  • It may summon persons whose involvement is prima facie disclosed by:
  • the police report;
  • witness statements;
  • documents;
  • and accompanying material.
  • It need not wait for evidence under Section 319.
  • Section 319 remains available later if trial evidence reveals another person’s involvement.
  • The powers operate at different stages.
  • BNSS Section 232 governs committal, while the corresponding Sessions cognizance and additional-accused framework continues.

Application

  • The police report is an investigative opinion, not a binding determination of who may face trial.
  • If the Sessions Court were compelled to wait for Section 319:
  • a person strongly implicated in the investigation might remain outside the trial;
  • witnesses would have to testify before the court could even secure that person’s presence;
  • and proceedings could require duplication.
  • Section 193 allows the Sessions Court to take cognizance after committal of the case.
  • Cognizance is of the offence as a whole.
  • It is not restricted to the individuals selected by police.
  • The Court harmonised the roles of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge.
  • The Magistrate may itself summon additional persons before committal where the material justifies it.
  • Alternatively, after committal, the Sessions Court may exercise its independent power.
  • Section 319 applies where stronger evidence emerges during trial.
  • It carries a higher threshold because it interrupts an ongoing trial and brings in a new accused.
  • The initial summoning power operates on the pre-trial record and ordinary prima facie standard.

Conclusion

  • The Constitution Bench held that the Sessions Court may summon persons not charge-sheeted immediately after committal, without waiting for Section 319 evidence.
  • Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court possess independent responsibility to examine the offence rather than follow the police opinion mechanically.