High Court’s Revisionary Order Relates Back, Permits Summoning Under Section 319; Fresh Trial Must Follow

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the criminal appeal by Jamin and another against the Uttar Pradesh Government and the complainant, arising from a challenge to a High Court order that upheld a Sessions Court direction summoning the appellants under Section 319 CrPC long after the main trial concluded. The appeal contested whether the Trial Court could be directed to summon additional accused after conviction of the original accused and whether the High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction without notice.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s approach. It held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s earlier rejection of a Section 319 application and directing a fresh consideration; an order of a superior court in revision that rectified a subordinate court’s error would relate back and replace the original order. The Court emphasised that Section 319(4) required that “the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard,” and that where a revisional order directed re-consideration of a Section 319 prayer made during the earlier trial, the subsequent summoning in compliance with that revisional order must be treated as having been made before the main trial concluded. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “What can be discerned from the aforesaid is that if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, then any rectifications made to the order passed by the Trial Court by such superior court in exercise of revisional powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC must be treated on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court and relate back to the original order.” The Court further noted that Section 319 was designed to prevent the real perpetrators from escaping trial and that revisional intervention to cure a patent illegality advanced that object.

Background The dispute arose from FIR No. 99/2009 (Hardoi, UP) alleging murder; the police filed a chargesheet on 14.07.2009 against two persons (Irshad and Irfan) while investigation remained pending against three others (Abdul, Jamin and Akil). The complainant filed successive applications under Section 319 CrPC to summon those three as accused. The Trial Court rejected the application on 29.01.2010 for want of cogent evidence and because key witnesses had not been fully cross‑examined; the High Court then directed reconsideration after cross‑examination. A second application was rejected by the Trial Court on 19.07.2010. During pendency of revision, the Sessions Court convicted Irshad and Irfan on 19.10.2011 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Years later the High Court (14.09.2021) allowed the revisional petition against the 19.07.2010 order, set it aside as suffering a patent illegality and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the Section 319 application in the light of evidence. Acting on that direction, the Trial Court on 21.02.2024 summoned Jamin and Akil (Abdul being deceased). The appellants moved Section 482 CrPC before the High Court which dismissed that petition on 01.04.2024; they then approached this Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including Hardeep Singh, Sukhpal Singh Khaira, Shashikant Singh and others on the scope, stage and standard for exercise of Section 319 powers, and restated that the power must ordinarily be exercised “in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence” and that the evidence required is stronger than mere probability though not necessarily cross‑examined. The Court held that where a revisional order rightly set aside a Trial Court order rejecting a Section 319 application for patent illegality, the revisional order must be treated as relating back to the date of the original order; consequently the Trial Court was not functus officio for the purpose of complying with the revisional direction. The Court directed that proceedings under Section 319(4) must commence afresh for the newly summoned persons and that they would be entitled to a fresh trial and to test witnesses in that trial. The appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court was directed to take necessary steps to produce the appellants for trial. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 6320 OF 2024) Case Title: Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Counsel (for appellants) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay (for State of Uttar Pradesh); (also counsel for complainant as noted in record)