Section 319 summons require cogent fresh evidence, not mere suspicion or a witness statement alone.

Section 319 CrPC confers an extraordinary power to summon an additional accused only on fresh evidence adduced during inquiry or trial, and it must be exercised sparingly on cogent and convincing material. A witness statement implicating another person is not enough by itself; the court must record judicial satisfaction that the material goes beyond a mere prima facie view or strong suspicion and reasonably justifies summoning. The article notes that the lower courts acted mainly on the witness statement without applying this stringent standard, rendering the summoning order unsustainable and requiring fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether persons not sent up in the charge-sheet could be summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of statements of a witness recorded in court, and what standard must guide the exercise of that power.

Analysis: Section 319 confers an extraordinary discretionary power, to be used sparingly and only where compelling reasons exist. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely because a witness implicates another person. The court must act on fresh evidence brought before it during inquiry or trial and must record a judicial satisfaction that the evidence is cogent and convincing. The standard is higher than a mere prima facie view and requires more than a strong suspicion; the material must be such as would reasonably justify summoning the person as an additional accused. The Court also noticed that the revisional and trial courts had proceeded essentially on the basis of the witness statement alone without applying the required stringent test.

Conclusion: The summoning order under Section 319 was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---