Supreme Court says Sessions Court can summon a person even if police did not name them in chargesheet, if enough evidence is present. This is allowed right at the start of the trial under Section 193 CrPC.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India gave a big judgment on Aug 5 about criminal trials. It said that a Sessions Court can call or summon an accused person right at the beginning of the trial under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even if the police did not name that person in the chargesheet.
This can be done if the available evidence clearly shows that the person might be involved in the crime.
This important decision was given by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
They rejected the argument that such a person can be summoned only later when a witness gives oral testimony against them, under Section 319 CrPC.
The Court said clearly:
“To hold in such a situation, that if the investigating agency blatantly exonerates an accused person and the Magistrate does not consequently commit him, the Court of Session itself would be rendered powerless to put such an offender in the dock at the very opening stage of the trial, would to our mind only hamper the cause of justice rather than advance it.”
This judgment came in a case involving a person named Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar, who was summoned to face trial in a serious case of rape and murder. Interestingly, the police had not included his name in the chargesheet.
After the Magistrate sent the case to the Sessions Court, the complainant filed an application under Section 193 CrPC, asking the court to summon Kallu as an accused. The trial court agreed with the plea and summoned him.
Later, the Allahabad High Court also agreed with this decision, which led Kallu (the petitioner) to appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court carefully examined the point raised that once a Magistrate takes cognizance (legally notices the offence) and sends the case to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court cannot again take fresh cognizance of the same offence.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Magistrate only takes cognizance of the offence, not of individual accused persons, and only for the purpose of sending the case to the Sessions Court.
The Court explained:
“Once the case in respect of the offence qua the accused, who are before the Court, is committed and cognizance is taken, the embargo under Section 193 regarding taking cognizance only by committal goes. Summoning additional persons will then be regarded as incidental to the cognizance already taken on committal and as, a part, of, the normal process that follows. A fresh committal of such person is not necessary.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Trial Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Viral Snake Venom Party Case
So, the Court finally upheld the Sessions Court’s decision to summon Kallu and rejected his plea. The Supreme Court also ordered that a copy of this judgment should be shared with all High Courts across the country, so that this clarity is maintained everywhere.
- Petitioner Kallu was represented by advocates Vikas Upadhyay, Ankita Kashyap, Shiva Narang, and Ranveer Singh.
CASE TITLE:
Kallu Nat vs State of UP
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sessions Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
