Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 22 October 2022 at 21:30 IST

Court – Supreme Court of India

Citation – Brindaban Das v/s State of WB (2009) 3 SCC 329

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that cognizance taken by the Hon’ble Court under the aegis of Section 319 CrPC would entails a De Novo trial. The Hon’ble Criminal Court is required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned under the the aegis of Section 319 CrPC.

However, if the large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, thus the court has to exercise such discretion.

Para – 25

The common thread in most matters where the use of discretion is in issue is that in the exercise of such discretion each case has to be considered on its own set of facts and circumstances.

In matters relating to invocation of powers under Section 319, the court is not merely required to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the FIR has surfaced during the trial, but the court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned.

Since issuance of summons under Section 319 CrPC entails a de novo trial and a large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity.

Drafted By – Abhijit Mishra

Key Words – Cognizance, De Novo trial.

Related Post