RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR.

RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence against a person occurs from the evidence led before the court; the test is more than a prima facie case at the stage of framing charge but short of satisfaction for conviction. Applying these principles, the Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order issuing summons and directed the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Srivastava; Respondent: State of U. P.; Respondent: Second respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of Sessions Judge issuing summons set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr.p.c., Summons to a Person Not Accused, Standards for Exercise of Section 319 Power, Reliance on Depositions Not Cross Examined
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Section 319 Cr.p.c. Summons to a Person Not Accused Standards for Exercise of Section 319 Power Reliance on Depositions Not Cross Examined

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava

Appellant

State of U. P.

Respondent

Second respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked based on the deposition of the second respondent which has not undergone cross-examination
  2. 2 What is the standard/test for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Judge erred in issuing summons to the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence against a person occurs from the evidence led before the court; the test is more than a prima facie case at the stage of framing charge but short of satisfaction for conviction. Applying these principles, the Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order issuing summons and directed the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of Sessions Judge issuing summons set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside