On Monday, Supreme Court’s Constitution bench ruled that the power of the trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon a person other than the accused may be utilized before acquittal or before sentence in the case of conviction. The constitution bench, which included Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna, made the observation: "We have taken into consideration the object of 319. We have tried to explain the period where trial comes to an end. There we have said this power should be exercised before acquittal order. In cases where conviction is there, it is before sentence. If it (conviction and sentence) is on the same date, it has to be shown that this power was exercised before the sentence."

The Supreme Court reserved its decision in the case last month. The Supreme Court was hearing a slew of petitions related to its Division Bench order from May 2019 referring the following questions to a larger bench:
1.    Does the trial court have the authority under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused when the trial of the other co-accused has concluded and the judgement of conviction has been rendered on the same date before issuing the summoning order?
2.    Whether the trial court has the authority under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused when the trial of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is later secured) is ongoing/pending, having been separated from the main trial?
3.    What are the rules that the competent court must follow when exercising its authority under Section 319 of the CrPC?
The petitioners' counsel argued that the trial court's power under Section 319 ends when the judgement of conviction is issued. The respondents' counsel argued that it can be invoked until a comprehensive order on sentencing is delivered.

Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khair vs Union of India
Citation: Crl.A. No. 000885/ 2019 

Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/37255/37255_2017_3_1501_40346_Judgement_05-Dec-2022.pdf