Case Briefing: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab 2022
Case Title and Citation
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.885 OF 2019 (and connected matters).
Factual Background
A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 05.03.2015 against 11 accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and other laws. The appellant (Sukhpal Singh Khaira) was not named as an accused in the initial charge sheet. During the trial (Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015), witnesses were recalled, and they named the appellant. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to summon the appellant as an additional accused. On 31.10.2017, the learned Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment, convicting 9 and acquitting 1 of the original accused. The Sessions Judge also allowed the Section 319 CrPC application and summoned the appellant on the same day. The appellant challenged the summoning order, arguing it was passed after the trial had concluded with the judgment of conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the challenge, leading to the present appeal. This situation necessitated an authoritative consideration by the Supreme Court regarding the stage at which the power under Section 319 of CrPC could be exercised.
Issue(s)
The Supreme Court considered the following substantial questions of law:
I. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?
II. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?
III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bench answered the questions of law as follows:
I. The power under Section 319 of CrPC must be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction. In the case of acquittal, the power must be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. If the summoning order is passed after the order of acquittal or after imposing sentence in the case of conviction, it will not be sustainable.
II. The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial proceeds in respect of the absconding accused (in the split-up/bifurcated trial), provided the evidence recorded in that bifurcated trial points to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. The evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if the power was not exercised before its conclusion.
III. Detailed guidelines were laid down, requiring the court to pause the trial upon finding evidence of involvement or receiving a Section 319 application, decide the necessity of summoning, and then decide whether a joint trial or a separate trial should be held.
Reason for the Decision
The Court reasoned that the power under Section 319 CrPC is a salutary power intended to ensure that justice is done by bringing all guilty parties to book, based on the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted).
The power can only be exercised “in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence”.
- Stage in Conviction Cases: In conviction cases, the trial is not complete immediately after the finding of guilt because Section 235(2) CrPC mandates that the Judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the sentence. The judgment, as per Section 354 CrPC, is only complete when the punishment is set out. Thus, the trial concludes only after the sentence is awarded, allowing the power under Section 319 CrPC to be exercised until the sentence is imposed.
- Stage in Acquittal Cases: In contrast, if the Judge records an order of acquittal under Section 232 CrPC, there is nothing further to be done, and the trial concludes immediately at that stage.
- Joint vs. Separate Trial: The requirement in Section 319(1) that the summoned person “could be tried together with the accused” is held to be directory, not mandatory. The court has discretion (under Section 223 CrPC) to decide whether to hold a joint trial or a separate fresh trial. If a summoning order is made, the proceedings against the newly added accused must mandatorily commence afresh, and witnesses must be re-heard (de novo trial), in accordance with Section 319(4) CrPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court clarified the law regarding the timing of exercising Section 319 CrPC power, holding that the power remains available until the sentence is pronounced in cases of conviction and before the judgment of acquittal in cases of acquittal. Furthermore, the power in a split-up trial applies only based on evidence presented in that particular bifurcated proceeding. The court established guidelines for trial judges to follow, primarily requiring them to pause the main trial to decide whether to summon the additional accused before proceeding to conclude the main judgment of conviction and sentence. The matter was referred back to the appropriate Bench to apply this legal position to the factual appeal of Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
Case Materials:
Day 1 of Arguments: 15 November 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 2 of Arguments: 16 November 2022 (Video Recording)
Day 3 of Arguments: 17 November 2022 (Video Recording)
