Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Deen Mohammad vs The State Of Haryana on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Vikram Nath, C.T. Ravikumar
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3058/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-01-2018
in CRR No. 4671/2017 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
DEEN MOHAMMAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 49879/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 19-05-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, AOR
Mr. Raunaq Dalal, Adv.
Mr. Karan Singh Dalal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR
Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Mr. Ritul Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Vivekanand Rana, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This petition was filed assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 Signature Not Verified passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.05.20 12:06:09 IST Reason: Criminal Revision No.4671 of 2017 between Deen Mohammad vs. State of Haryana and Others, whereby the revision 2 was dismissed and the order of the trial Court dated 16.11.2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was upheld.
Although, this Court had issued notices on 16.04.2018, no stay was granted with regard to the pending trial. In the meantime, in 2019, the trial has concluded and resulted into conviction of the accused, who were put on trial.
At this stage, the question is if this petition is allowed resulting into allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., what relief can actually be granted? In this respect, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the Constitution Bench deciding of this Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289. Paragraph Nos.39(I) and 40(II) of the said judgment, which answers the questions framed by the Constitution Bench, are reproduced hereunder:
39.(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 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?
The power under Section 319 CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of 3 acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case a and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.
40.(II) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 CPC 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?
The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.” A perusal of the above, clearly indicates that nothing further can be done insofar as the present application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned as the trial has already concluded.
It has been brought to our notice that against some of the absconder accused, a supplementary charge- sheet was filed, which has resulted into a subsequent 4 trial initiated against the said absconder accused, which is said to be pending.
If that be so, it would be open to the petitioner to apply afresh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the other named accused in the First Information Report.
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.
Pending applications also stand disposed of. (NEETU KHAJURIA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER