R C Bansal Vs Cbi & Ors decided by High Court of Delhi on 2.02.11

Hon’ble High Court observed as under "Order summoning accused persons is liable to be quashed for the reason that that order was passed at a time when the case had already been fixed for arguments on charge and the stage of summoning additional persons as accused had gone by and the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. had not yet reached. Consequently, even the direction given for registration of a case against the investigating officer has also to be set aside."

Uma Shankar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr

On behalf of the Petitioner it was urged that when he was not named as an accused in the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance as far as he was concerned and the trial court should have waited till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. if at all the Petitioner was to be arrayed as an accused. Mr P S Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, reiterated the oft-repeated saying that cognizance is taken of an offence and not the offender.
Magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report.

Shashi Kant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh 2002 (v) SCC 738

The intention of the provision here is that wherein the course of any enquiry into or trial of, an offence, it appears to the court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. At that stage, the court would consider that such a person could be tried together with the accused who is already before the court facing the trial. The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the proceedings right from the beginning have mandatorily to be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. In short, there has to be a de novo trial against him. The provision of de novo trial is mandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a person so brought before the court, it would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses for the cross examination of such a person. They have to be examined afresh. Fresh examination-in-chief and not only their presentation for the purpose of the cross examination of the newly added accused is the mandate of section 319 (4). The words "could be tried together with the accused" in section 319 (1) appear to be only directory. "could be" cannot under these circumstances be held to be "must be". The provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the court has concluded with the result that the newly added person can not be tried together with the accused who was before the court when order under section 319 (1) was passed, the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the opinion earlier formed by the court on the basis of the evidence before it that the newly added person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order for his being brought before the court.

CrPC- Sec 319 Brindaban Das and others Vs.State of West Bengal (S.L.P. (Crl.) NO.6853 of 2006) The fulcrum on which the invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. rests is whether the summoning of persons other than the named accused would make such a difference to the prosecution as would enable it not only to prove its case but to also secure the conviction of the persons summoned.

CrPC- Sec 319 Rajender Singh vs. State of U.P. [2007 (7) SCC 378] where it was reiterated that although a person may not have been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage, the Court could summon such person to face trial if it appeared to the Court that an offence had been committed by such person. It was held that while the decision to proceed or not to proceed against a person under Section 319 of the Code was in the discretion of the Trial Court, the said decision would have to be taken after the Court applied its mind to the evidence before it.

CrPC- Sec 319 Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rastogi, [1983 (1) SCC 1] "In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken.”

CrPC- Sec 319 Michael Machado vs. CBI, [2000 (3) SCC 262] where the essential conditions for the exercise of power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had been considered and it was held that the power under Section 319 vested in the Court should be used sparingly and the evidence on which the same was to be invoked should indicate a reasonable prospect of conviction of the persons to be summoned. This Court went on to hold that mere suspicion of the involvement of the person concerned in the offence was not enough, particularly when a large number of witnesses had been examined and no evidence on which conviction could be ecured had been adduced on behalf of the prosecution.