Section 319 CrPC summons remain effective even after the original trial ends, subject to a mandatory de novo trial.

Section 319 CrPC permits a court, on evidence recorded during inquiry or trial, to summon a person appearing to have committed an offence, and the later conclusion of the trial against the original accused does not nullify that order. The requirement that the summoned person "could be tried together with the accused" is directory and indicates the stage for exercising the power, while the fresh or de novo trial under Section 319(4) is mandatory once the person is added. The SC therefore held that a valid summoning order remains effective even after the original trial ends, and the summoned person may still be proceeded against.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 becomes ineffective because the trial of the already arraigned accused concluded before the summoned person could be tried together with that accused.

Analysis: Section 319(1) empowers the Court to proceed against a person appearing from the evidence to have committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, while Section 319(4) mandates that the proceedings against such newly added person begin afresh and the witnesses be reheard. The requirement of a fresh or de novo trial is mandatory, but the words "could be tried together with the accused" are only directory and are used to indicate the stage at which the Court may form its satisfaction to summon the person. Once the Court has validly exercised power under Section 319(1), the subsequent conclusion of the trial against the original accused does not nullify the earlier summoning order or deprive the Court of authority to proceed against the summoned person. The scheme of Sections 190, 193 and 209 of the Code also supports the view that the Court of Session has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and proceed against persons whose complicity emerges from the record.

Conclusion: The conclusion of the trial against the original accused did not render the summons under Section 319 ineffective, and the summoned respondent could still be proceeded against.

Final Conclusion: The High Court erred in quashing the summoning order on the ground that the trial had ended, and the matter was required to be sent back for consideration of the remaining objections.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 319 of the Code is validly exercised when the Court, during an inquiry or trial, finds from the evidence that a non-accused appears to have committed an offence; the later conclusion of the trial against the original accused does not invalidate that order, because the requirement that the summoned person could be tried together with the accused is directory while the de novo trial requirement is mandatory.

---