JAMIN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

JAMIN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

The High Court rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the Section 319 application as it involved a patent illegality; the High Court's revisional order relates back to the date of the original Trial Court order and thus the subsequent summoning order passed in compliance with the revisional direction is deemed to have been passed before conclusion of the trial; consequently the Trial Court may proceed in a separate/de novo trial against newly summoned persons under Section 319(4); while initial summoning does not mandate prior hearing, once an application is rejected and a revision is decided prejudicially, the proposed accused are...

Parties
Appellant: Jamin; Appellant: Akil; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent (complainant): Respondent No.2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Final Judgment Delivered on 06 March 2025
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court, Relating Back of Revisional Orders, Right to Be Heard, Summoning of Accused, De Novo Trial, Stage of Summoning Under Section 319
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Section 319 Cr PC Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court Relating Back of Revisional Orders Right to Be Heard Summoning of Accused De Novo Trial +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamin

Appellant

Akil

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Respondent No.2

Respondent (complainant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Final Judgment Delivered on 06 March 2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was right to exercise revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Trial Court order rejecting a Section 319 CrPC application
  2. 2 Whether the High Court revisional order and the Trial Court summoning order would relate back and replace the earlier Trial Court order rejecting the Section 319 application
  3. 3 Whether a Trial Court could entertain a Section 319 application after conclusion of the trial when no stay was granted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the Section 319 application as it involved a patent illegality; the High Court's revisional order relates back to the date of the original Trial Court order and thus the subsequent summoning order passed in compliance with the revisional direction is deemed to have been passed before conclusion of the trial; consequently the Trial Court may proceed in a separate/de novo trial against newly summoned persons under Section 319(4); while initial summoning does not mandate prior hearing, once an application is rejected and a revision is decided prejudicially, the proposed accused are...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 01.04.2024 upholding the Trial Court summoning order dated 21.02.2024 is affirmed.
  • Trial Court directed to take necessary steps in furtherance of summoning order dated 21.02.2024 to ensure the appellants are produced to face trial.