Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.In Kailash V State of Rajastan and Another [2009 (14 ) SCC 51 ], the Apex Court had occasion to elucidate on the ambit and meaning of the keyword "it appears from the evidence "....dny person"......"has committed any offence " that appear in Section 319 and it was held  as follows :-

"A glance at these provisions would suggest that during the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. The key words in this Section are 'it appears from the evidence' ... 'any person' ....'has committed any offence'. It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under S.319 CrPC would be used by the Court. This is apart from the fact that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the trial is already going on. This Court has, time and again, declared that the discretion under S.319 CrPC has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence. The words 'it appears' are not to be read lightly. In that the Court would have to be circumspect while exercising this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of the Section demands."

9.In Krishnappa V State of Karnataka [AIR 2004 SC 4298] , it was held by the Apex Court that an order under Section 319 of the Code would not be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned.

10.In Sarabjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another ( 2009 (16) SCC 46) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to observe as follows:

"17. The provision of S.319 of the Code, on a plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case has been made out must appear to the court. Has the criterion laid down by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) been satisfied is the question?

"...Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling  reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word "evidence" in S.319 contemplates that evidence of witnesses given in Court..."

An order under S.319 of the Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction.

"Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-

Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under S.319 Cr.P.C. In S.319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under S.319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."