Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In order to answer the aforesaid questions posed, it will be appropriate to refer to Section 351 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as `Old Code'), where an analogous provision existed, empowering the court to summon any person other than the accused if he is found to be connected with the commission of the offence. However, when the new Cr.P.C. was being drafted, regard was had to 41st Report of the Law Commission where in the paragraphs 24.80 and 24.81 recommendations were made to make this provision more comprehensive. The said recommendations read:

"24.80 It happens sometimes, though not very often, that a Magistrate hearing a case against certain accused finds from the evidence that some person, other than the accused before him, is also concerned in that very offence or in a connected offence. It is proper that Magistrate should have the power to call and join him in proceedings. Section 351 provides for such a situation, but only if that person happens to be attending the Court. He can then be detained and proceeded against. There is no express provision in Section 351 for summoning such a person if he is not present in court. Such a provision would make Section 351 fairly comprehensive, and we think it proper to expressly provide for that situation.

24.81 Section 351 assumes that the Magistrate proceeding under it has the power of taking cognizance of the new case. It does not, however, say in what manner cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. The modes of taking cognizance are mentioned in Section 190, and are apparently exhaustive. The question is, whether against the newly added accused, cognizance will be supposed to have been taken on the Magistrates own information under Section 190(1), or only in the manner in which cognizance was first taken of the offence against the accused. The question is important, because the methods of inquiry and trial in the two cases differ. About the true position under the existing law, there has been difference of opinion, and we think it should be made clear. It seems to us that the main purpose of this particular provision is that the whole case against all known suspects should be proceeded with expeditiously and convenience requires that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same manner against the other accused. We, therefore, propose to recast Section 351 making it comprehensive and providing that there will be no difference in the mode of taking cognizance if a new person is added as an accused during the proceedings. It is, of course, necessary (as is already provided) that in such a situation the evidence must he reheard in the presence of the newly added accused."