BHOLU RAM versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

BHOLU RAM versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that once a court issues a summons to an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., that order cannot be recalled by the same court; the proper course for an aggrieved party is to challenge the order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for prosecuting offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as they are not acts done in discharge of official duty. The orders of the Revisional Court and High Court quashing the summons were set aside, and the trial court's order was restored.

Parties
Appellant/accused: Bholu Ram; Respondent No. 1: State of Punjab; Respondent No. 2/head Master Cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer: Sher Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Order of Additional Sessions Judge and High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of Revisional Court and High Court set aside; order of Magistrate restored.
Legal Topics
Summoning of Additional Accused, Section 319 Cr.p.c., Recalling of Summons Order, Requirement of Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.p.c., Role of State in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Procedure Summoning of Additional Accused Section 319 Cr.p.c. Recalling of Summons Order Requirement of Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.p.c. Role of State in Criminal Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bholu Ram

Appellant/accused

State of Punjab

Respondent No. 1

Sher Singh

Respondent No. 2/head Master Cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Order of Additional Sessions Judge and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can recall an order summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required for prosecution of public servant for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
  3. 3 Scope and timing of exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that once a court issues a summons to an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., that order cannot be recalled by the same court; the proper course for an aggrieved party is to challenge the order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for prosecuting offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as they are not acts done in discharge of official duty. The orders of the Revisional Court and High Court quashing the summons were set aside, and the trial court's order was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of Revisional Court and High Court set aside; order of Magistrate restored.

Orders

  • Orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge and High Court are set aside.
  • Order of Judicial Magistrate, Barnala summoning respondent No. 2 as accused is restored.