In a significant judgment that reshapes the procedural understanding of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 2186/2023] has held that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC is not entitled to a pre-hearing before being added as an accused in an ongoing trial.
🔍 What is Section 319 CrPC?
Section 319 empowers a trial court to summon any person—not initially an accused—if it appears from the evidence during the trial that such person has committed an offence. The threshold of satisfaction here is notably higher than that required during charge framing under Section 228 CrPC.
🧑⚖️ Key Takeaways from the Judgment:
-
No Right of Prior Hearing: The Court categorically held that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement to give the person summoned under Section 319 an opportunity of being heard before issuance of summons.
-
No Power to Discharge: Once added, such a person cannot file an application for discharge before the trial court. This is because the power under Section 319 is exercised based on stronger prima facie evidence, compared to the lower standard required for framing of charges.
-
Overruling of Previous Judgments:
The Court overruled the views taken in Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2015) 9 SCC 244] and Ram Janam Yadav v. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No. 3199/2021]—which had taken a contrary approach—stating that these decisions were inconsistent with binding constitutional bench judgments.
The Court relied heavily on its earlier authoritative rulings in:
-
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], and
-
Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706]
These precedents affirm that the procedural rigour under Section 319 aims to avoid delay and prevent obstruction of justice.
⚖️ My Legal View:
I, Advocate Tarun Gaur, a Criminal Law Practitionwr, believe the Supreme Court’s ruling is both legally sound and consistent with the intent behind Section 319 CrPC. The provision is a weapon in the hands of the court to ensure no guilty person escapes the clutches of the law, even if initially omitted from the charge sheet.
The CrPC does not mandate any pre-summoning hearing, and such a requirement would only serve to delay proceedings and weaken the court’s ability to administer justice effectively.
🛡️ What About Remedies for the Summoned Person?
It is essential to clarify that being summoned under Section 319 CrPC does not leave the individual without recourse. The following remedies are still available:
-
Challenging the summoning order under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, or under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS.
🔚 Conclusion
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court provides much-needed clarity on the scope and procedure under Section 319 CrPC. It underscores the non-negotiable duty of courts to act upon credible evidence that arises during the trial, even if it implicates someone who was not originally accused.
By eliminating the requirement of a prior hearing, the judgment ensures that justice remains swift, focused, and uncompromised.