Section 319 CrPC: conflicting standards on witness evidence and summoning an accused referred to a larger Bench.

Section 319 CrPC permits adding a person as an accused on the basis of evidence, but the case law was divided on whether examination-in-chief alone is sufficient or whether cross-examination must first be completed. The Court also noted conflicting formulations on the level of satisfaction required to invoke the power, ranging from reasonable satisfaction from the evidence to a stricter likelihood of conviction standard. Because co-ordinate Bench decisions had adopted different views on both the stage and threshold for exercise of the power, the questions were referred to a Bench of three Judges for authoritative resolution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised before cross-examination of a witness is completed, and what standard should govern the exercise of that power.

Analysis: The Court surveyed earlier decisions taking differing views on Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. One line of authority treated examination-in-chief as sufficient material for summoning a person not already arrayed as an accused, while another held that the court should await completion of cross-examination. The Court also examined the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power and noted the tension between the expressions suggesting reasonable satisfaction from evidence and the stricter formulation that the summoned person must be likely to be convicted. In view of these conflicting co-ordinate Bench decisions and the importance of the questions, the Court found it appropriate that the issues be considered by a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The questions concerning the stage and standard for exercise of power under Section 319 were referred for consideration by a Bench of three Judges.

Ratio Decidendi: Where co-ordinate Bench decisions conflict on the scope and standard of Section 319, the proper course is to refer the questions to a larger Bench for authoritative resolution.

---