Section 319 Cr.P.C..Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
“In view of the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is a complete answer to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, there remains no doubt about the legal proposition that Sections 319 and 190 of the Code operate in entirely different fields andSection 319 in no manner whatsoever impinges upon the powers of the Magistrate underSection 190 of the Code. The impugned order Page 3470 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate was on the basis of the report submitted to him under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the material available on record and as such it cannot be held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had no powers to take cognizance of the offence and summon the petitioners as accused, two of whom had been shown in Column No. 2 and regarding remaining two, there was some material available to summon them as accused persons. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.”
DDELHI HIGH COURT
Anirudh Sen vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)
Decided on 8 November, 2006
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed