The hearing on whether Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. can be invoked after judgement is reserved was continued on Wednesday by a 5-judge bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B. V. Nagarathna.

While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court referred three questions on the scope and ambit of power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a Constitution Bench, which remain unanswered even after the Constitution Bench's decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab:

1. Whether the trial court has 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 as 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 or pending, having been split from the main trial?
3. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C?

Earlier, Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh for the petitioner contended that his case is covered by the Apex Court's decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which defines the circumstances under which power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. can be exercised. SG Tushar Mehta stated that interpretation would be required. Mr. Patwalia informed the bench that the Union Government had filed an application to intervene in the matter, which he would oppose because the parties are only the accused and the Punjab government. He requested that the application be denied without giving him the opportunity to respond. It was also pointed out that a PMLA proceeding had been initiated against the accused, and the Center was now attempting to protect its PMLA proceedings in a roundabout way. The SG argued that because the current proceeding is not about the facts of the case but only about the law and is examining a central statute, the Union Government's intervention is required.

On March 5, 2015, a FIR was filed against 11 accused persons for violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985, the Arms Act, and the Information Technology Act of 2000. Initially, ten accused were summoned under the first charge sheet, and a trial was underway. A second charge sheet was filed, but this time the accused was not named. Some prosecution witnesses were later called back, and the accused were named. In the first case, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the accused. The trial court first found the nine other accused on trial guilty and then granted the prosecution's application under Section 319 CrPC. The decision was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Courts.

Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab