Section 319 CrPC requires judicial satisfaction on evidence before summoning an additional accused; cross-examination may be awaited.

The Supreme Court explained that the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and discretionary, and may be exercised only when evidence gives the court judicial satisfaction that the person appears to have committed the offence and is likely to be convicted. That satisfaction need not arise from examination-in-chief alone; the trial court may wait until cross-examination is completed and fuller evidence is available. The Court also noted that the Sessions Judge's refusal to summon was not an interim order warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court's interference was therefore unwarranted, and the refusal to summon was left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the trial court's refusal to summon a person under Section 319 of that Code before completion of cross-examination.

Analysis: The power under Section 319 is an extraordinary and discretionary power to be exercised judicially only when the court is satisfied from the evidence that a person not facing trial appears to have committed an offence and may likely be convicted. Such satisfaction need not be reached on the basis of examination-in-chief alone, and the trial court was entitled to defer consideration until the cross-examination of the witness was completed and other evidence was available. The order of the Sessions Judge was not an interim order warranting interference at the instance of a witness, and the High Court ought not to have invoked Section 482 in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and the order setting aside the Sessions Judge's refusal to summon the appellant could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, leaving the trial court's refusal to summon the appellant intact.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised only on judicial satisfaction based on evidence showing a likelihood of conviction, and it may properly await completion of cross-examination and fuller appraisal of the evidence before summoning an additional accused.

---