Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.44 seconds)Section 319 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Gopal, Chairman, U.P. And Higher ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 1998
[1999 (1) RCR 200], High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Chanan Vs. State of Punjab [1999 (1) RCR 371] and the High Court
of Allahabad in Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P [1999 (2) RCR 534]
have taken a contrary view and have held that the term 'evidence' in
Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate cross-examination by
persons who are to be summoned as accused to join trial. It does not
contemplate of creating of additional stage of cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses by those persons who are to be summoned and
added as accused.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Surinder Mohan And Others on 7 February, 2000
In
State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and Others [(2000) 2 SCC 396],
this Court dealt with the contention that before granting pardon under
Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., accused should be permitted to cross
examine such person whose evidence is recorded by the Magistrate.
The Court negatived the said contention by holding that at the time of
investigation or inquiry into an offence, the accused cannot claim any
right under law to cross-examine the witness. The right to cross-
examine would arise only at the time of trial. During the course of
investigation by the police, the question of cross-examination by the
accused does not arise. Similarly, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. when the
Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence, that is, before
issuing process holds the inquiry, the accused has no right to be heard,
and, therefore, the question of cross-examination does not arise.
Further, the person to whom pardon is granted, is examined but is not
offered for cross-examination and thereafter during trial if he is
examined and cross-examined then there is no question of any
prejudice caused to the accused. In such cases, at the most the
accused may lose the chance to cross-examine the approver twice, that
is to say, once before committal and the other at the time of trial.
Joginder Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 16 November, 1978
In support of his contention, learned senior counsel Mr. Ranjit
Kumar referred to the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another [(1979) 1 SCC 345]. In our view, this
decision nowhere lays down that before a person is added as accused
in a session trial case, he should be permitted to cross-examine the
witnesses whose evidence is recorded. On the contrary, it lays down
that once the Sessions Court is seized of the matter as a result of the
committal order against some accused the power under Section 319(1)
can come into play and Court can add any person, not an accused
before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried alongwith other
accused. The Court has further observed that the very purpose of
enacting Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have
been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom
evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the
criminal court are included in the expression "any person not being
the accused".
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 1998
Further, the scope of Section 319 was considered by this Court
in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149]. In
paragraph 10, the Court held that sub-section (1) of Section 319
contemplates existence of some evidence appearing in the course of
trial wherefrom the Court can prima facie conclude that the person not
arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of the crime for
which he can be tried with those already named by the police. The
Court has also clarified that:
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
Lastly, learned counsel further submitted that power under
Section 319 is an extraordinary power and should be used very
sparingly and only for some compelling reasons for taking cognizance
of other persons against whom action has not been taken. For this
purpose, he referred to MCD vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi [(1983) 1 SCC
1]. In our view, there cannot be a dispute that power under Section
319 is to be sparingly used. But that would not mean that when a
prosecutrix names three persons who were involved in the serious
crime are not to be added as accused by exercise of such power.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. Etc on 27 February, 1969
As against this, the High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Kishori
etc.