Section 319 CrPC can be triggered by trial evidence and an accused's application; recall of summons is impermissible.

Section 319 CrPC may be invoked on evidence recorded during inquiry or trial, and the provision does not bar an accused from bringing material to the court's notice; the additional accused could therefore be summoned on a prima facie showing of involvement. A Magistrate has no inherent power to recall a valid summoning order in the absence of express statutory authority, and revisional interference at the summoning stage cannot rest on a fresh appraisal of merits or on a premature finding that sanction under Section 197 is required. The summoning order was restored and the proceedings directed to continue expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained at the instance of an accused and whether such power could be exercised on the basis of evidence adduced during trial; (ii) Whether a Magistrate had power to recall a summoning order passed under Section 319 and whether the revisional courts were justified in setting aside the order on the ground of want of sanction and on merits.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained at the instance of an accused and whether such power could be exercised on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.

Analysis: Section 319 authorises the Court to proceed against any person not already an accused if evidence in the course of inquiry or trial shows his involvement. The provision does not restrict who may bring such material to the Court's notice, nor does it prescribe any limitation period. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised judicially, but it may be invoked on the basis of evidence recorded in Court and even on an application made by an accused already facing trial. The material before the Magistrate disclosed prima facie involvement of the proposed accused, and the order summoning him was supported by evidence led in Court.

Conclusion: The applications under Section 319 were maintainable and the summoning of the additional accused was lawful.

Issue (ii): Whether a Magistrate had power to recall a summoning order passed under Section 319 and whether the revisional courts were justified in setting aside the order on the ground of want of sanction and on merits.

Analysis: Once summons or process is issued by a competent criminal court, the order cannot be recalled in the absence of express statutory authority. The remedy against an illegal or arbitrary order lies in invoking inherent jurisdiction, not in seeking recall before the same court. The revisional court also erred in reappreciating the evidence at the stage of summoning and in quashing the proceedings on the ground of sanction under Section 197, since offences of the kind alleged are not, by their nature, protected by that provision and the question of sanction could not be conclusively decided at the stage of summons.

Conclusion: The recall of the summoning order and the interference by the revisional courts were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the orders of the revisional court and the High Court were set aside, and the Magistrate's order summoning the additional accused was restored, with a direction for expeditious trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court may summon an additional accused under Section 319 on the basis of evidence recorded in Court, but a valid summoning order cannot be recalled by the Magistrate in the absence of express power, and revisional interference at the summoning stage cannot rest on premature evaluation of merits or sanction.

---