Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the learned trial Court should pass the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) before passing the order of acquittal.

What was the Background of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• In this case, seven of the accused have been acquitted and the remaining two have been convicted.
• The Trial Court has adjudicated that a separate trial should be initiated against the petitioners and therefore, a notice for separate trial should be issued against them.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision has been filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that an order under Section 319 of CrPC can be made only before the pronouncement of an order acquitting those already arraigned where the conclusion of the trial results in acquittal or a joint result. In a case of conviction, the proceedings under Section 319 of CrPC should be initiated before the imposition of sentence, the court clarified while hearing the criminal revision petition.
• It was further held that it is the settled proposition of law, the finding of the learned trial Court to summon the petitioners under Section 319 of CrPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the petition is allowed.

What is Section 319 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 319 of CrPC deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 358 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—

(a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Essential Elements of Section 319:

• There is any enquiry or trial of an offence.
• It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which, the person is to be tried together with the accused.
• The power under this section is discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.

Case laws:

• In the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 CrPC is based on the principle that innocent should not be punished, at the same time, real culprit should not be allowed to escape.
• In Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 of CrPC is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. Although it confers of vide amplitude but is required to be exercised sparingly.