Section 319 CrPC summons cannot be defeated by inadmissible police statements, unproved alibi, or later co-accused trial completion.

In proceedings under Section 319 CrPC, investigation statements under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence and cannot be used under Section 482 CrPC to displace a trial court's prima facie satisfaction or to nullify a summoning order. A plea of alibi is a defence matter; the burden lies on the person asserting it under the Evidence Act, and it cannot be conclusively accepted at the threshold on affidavits or police-recorded statements. The later conclusion of the co-accused's trial does not render a validly passed Section 319 summoning order infructuous or inoperative. The High Court's quashing of the additional accused's summoning was therefore unsustainable, and the trial court's order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be relied upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to negate an order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the plea of alibi could be accepted at that stage on the basis of affidavits or police-recorded statements, and who bore the burden of proof; (iii) whether subsequent conclusion of the trial of the co-accused rendered the summoning order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ineffective.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be relied upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to negate an order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 are not substantive evidence. By virtue of Section 162, they can be used only for the limited purpose permitted by law and cannot form the basis of a finding on the merits of participation or presence at the scene. An order under Section 319 can be interfered with only on legally admissible material, not on inadmissible police statements used to displace the trial court's prima facie satisfaction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in relying on Section 161 statements to set aside the summoning order; the conclusion on absence from the scene was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of alibi could be accepted at that stage on the basis of affidavits or police-recorded statements, and who bore the burden of proof.

Analysis: The plea of alibi is a matter of defence, and the burden to establish it lies on the person asserting it under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such a defence is ordinarily to be proved in trial by admissible evidence subject to cross-examination. Affidavits or statements collected outside the trial process cannot be used to conclusively accept the plea and defeat the summoning order at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plea of alibi could not validly be accepted in the Section 482 proceedings on the material relied upon by the High Court.

Issue (iii): Whether subsequent conclusion of the trial of the co-accused rendered the summoning order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ineffective.

Analysis: The power under Section 319 is triggered when evidence in the course of inquiry or trial shows involvement of a person not already arraigned. The fact that the co-accused's trial had later concluded does not nullify an earlier order summoning another person under Section 319. The order continues to operate, and the newly added accused is to face the consequences contemplated by the provision, including de novo trial safeguards.

Conclusion: The completion of the co-accused's trial did not render the summoning order infructuous or inoperative.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court quashing the summoning of the additional accused was unsustainable, and the trial court's order summoning him to face trial was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a summoning order cannot be set aside on the basis of inadmissible Section 161 statements or on an unproved plea of alibi raised under Section 482; and the later conclusion of the co-accused's trial does not extinguish the operative effect of a validly passed Section 319 order.

---