Section 319 CrPC: court-recorded evidence, stronger-than-prima-facie satisfaction, and power to add omitted accused during inquiry or trial.

Section 319 CrPC may be invoked after cognizance during inquiry or trial, but not at committal or allied pre-trial administrative stages. "Evidence" for this purpose means evidence recorded before the court; investigation material is only corroborative. The court may act on examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination. Summoning an additional accused requires a stronger-than-prima-facie satisfaction: the evidence must be strong and cogent and, if unrebutted, capable of leading to conviction, though conviction need not be inevitable. The provision extends to persons not named in the FIR or not charge-sheeted, while discharged persons can be proceeded against only through the prescribed statutory procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) The stage at which power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised; (ii) whether the expression "evidence" in Section 319(1) includes material collected during investigation or is confined to evidence recorded in court; (iii) whether the Court can act on examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination; (iv) the degree of satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused; and (v) whether the power extends to persons not named in the FIR, persons named but not charge-sheeted, and persons discharged.

Issue (i): The question was whether the power under Section 319 can be invoked during the course of inquiry or only after trial has commenced.

Analysis: The expression "in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence" was read as covering the full pre-trial inquiry stage after cognizance and the trial stage after framing of charge. The material before the Court at the inquiry stage may be used to identify persons whose involvement appears from the record, while the actual trial begins with the recording of evidence. The stage of committal and the steps under Sections 207 to 209 are pre-trial and do not permit resort to Section 319 in the manner of a judicial determination on merits.

Conclusion: The power under Section 319 can be exercised after cognizance and during inquiry or trial, but not during the committal and allied pre-trial administrative stages.

Issue (ii): The question was whether "evidence" in Section 319(1) includes investigation material or is limited to evidence recorded in court.

Analysis: The word "evidence" was held to mean evidence adduced before the Court in the strict sense, namely oral and documentary evidence produced in court. Material collected during investigation does not by itself constitute evidence for the purpose of summoning an additional accused, though such material may assist the Court in corroborating evidence recorded during inquiry or trial. In complaint cases, limited pre-trial material may aid the process, but the decisive basis remains court-recorded evidence.

Conclusion: The power under Section 319 is based on evidence before the Court, and investigation material can only have a corroborative role.

Issue (iii): The question was whether the Court must wait for cross-examination before acting under Section 319.

Analysis: Examination-in-chief itself is evidence and becomes part of the record once recorded. Since the person sought to be added is not yet an accused and will later receive a fresh trial under Section 319(4), there is no requirement to wait for cross-examination before summoning him. Requiring a completed cross-examination would amount to an unwarranted mini-trial at the summoning stage.

Conclusion: The Court may proceed under Section 319 on the basis of examination-in-chief alone, without waiting for cross-examination.

Issue (iv): The question was the degree of satisfaction required for invoking Section 319 and whether summoning is permissible only when conviction is likely.

Analysis: The standard was held to be stricter than a mere prima facie view at the stage of charge, but short of a conclusion that the proposed accused is certain to be convicted. The evidence must be strong and cogent, and if unrebutted, should be capable of leading to conviction. The power is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly and not on mere suspicion or a fishing inquiry.

Conclusion: Section 319 requires stronger satisfaction than framing of charge, but not a finding that conviction is inevitable.

Issue (v): The question was whether Section 319 extends to persons not named in the FIR, persons named but not charge-sheeted, and persons discharged.

Analysis: The provision applies to any person not already facing trial, including persons not named in the FIR, persons named in the FIR but omitted from the charge-sheet, and persons placed in Column 2. A discharged person stands on a different footing, and fresh resort to Section 319 is not permissible directly; recourse must first be taken to the procedure under Sections 300(5) and 398, after which such person may be arraigned if the statutory requirements are met.

Conclusion: Section 319 extends to persons not named or not charge-sheeted, and to discharged persons only after compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by clarifying the scope, stage, evidentiary basis, and degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319, while preserving the special procedure applicable to persons already discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 319 can be invoked only on evidence recorded before the Court, including examination-in-chief, when that evidence discloses a stronger-than-prima-facie case against a person not already facing trial, and the provision applies to omitted or uncharge-sheeted persons, subject to the statutory safeguards governing discharged persons.

---