TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court can summon accused without committal order if prima facie case exists. Upheld by higher courts.</h1> <h3>Nisar and Ors. Versus State of U.P.</h3> The Court of Session had jurisdiction to summon the accused under Section 193 of the Code without a committal order under Section 209, as it found a prima ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session to summon accused under Section 193 of the Code.2. Interpretation of Section 319 of the Code regarding summoning of accused.3. Applicability of Section 193 and Section 319 of the Code in summoning accused during trial.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Court of Session under Section 193 of the CodeThe case involved an unnatural death where the deceased's father alleged the involvement of multiple individuals, including the appellants. The appellants challenged the summoning order issued by the Additional Session Judge, claiming that without a committal order under Section 209 of the Code, the Court of Session lacked the power to summon them under Section 193. However, the learned Judge, after reviewing the evidence, found a prima facie case against the appellants and summoned them. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that Section 193 empowers the Court of Session to summon individuals based on existing material, even without a committal order. The Supreme Court concurred with this interpretation, citing precedent and holding that once a case is committed to the Court of Session, the restriction on its power under Section 193 is lifted, allowing it to summon accused based on available evidence.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 319 of the CodeThe appellants argued that Section 319 of the Code could only be invoked when evidence was led during the trial, which had not yet occurred in their case. They contended that the High Court erred in upholding the summoning order based on Section 319. The Court clarified that Section 319 allows the summoning of persons appearing guilty based on evidence emerging during the trial. Since the stage for invoking Section 319 had not been reached in this case, the Court affirmed that the appellants could not be summoned under this section.Issue 3: Applicability of Section 193 and Section 319 in summoning accusedThe Court referenced a prior judgment to support its stance that once a case is committed to the Court of Session, the jurisdiction under Section 193 is unrestricted, enabling the summoning of individuals implicated in the crime based on available evidence. The appellants' argument against the summoning order under Section 193 was dismissed, emphasizing the Court of Session's authority to take cognizance of offenses as a court of original jurisdiction post-committal. Additionally, the Court reiterated that Section 319 can only be invoked during the trial upon the emergence of evidence implicating additional individuals, a stage that had not been reached in the present case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the summoning of the appellants by the Court of Session under Section 193 of the Code.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
