Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While further elaborating the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Michael Machado & another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75, observed that mere suspicion is not sufficient that he is also the accused along with the other accused, but the Court should have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence collected, that the complicity of the accused along with the other accused, cannot be ruled out. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under:-

Again in case Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan & another, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 200, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while following the judgments delivered in cases Krishanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 678 and Michael Machado (supra), observed as under:-

" 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 Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 in 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."

Recently, in a judgment delivered in case Brindaban Das and others Vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 672, the Hon'ble Apex Court while following the judgments delivered in cases Krishanappa and Michael Machado (supra), observed as under:-

"18. The common thread in most matters where the use of discretion is in issue is that in the exercise of such discretion each case has to be considered on its own set of facts and circumstances. In matters relating to invocation of powers under Section 319, the Court is not merely required to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the F.I.R. has surfaced during the trial, but the Court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since issuance of summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. entails a de novo trial and a large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial Court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity. Although, a somewhat discordant note was struck in Rajender Singh's case (supra) the views expressed in the majority of decisions of this Court on the point subscribe to the view that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice."