https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196819 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. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196819 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196819