Legal Analysis: Additional Prosecution thru 319 of CrPC

Summary Notes of the lecture on Section 319 Cr.P.C.: Power of Court to Summon Accused by Mr S.R. Somasekhara, Bengaluru/Dist Judge 

Below is a cohesive and arranged version of the lecture regarding Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), integrating the various aspects and legal provisions referenced during the speaker's lecture from speakers point of view:

---

Good evening, friends. Today, I will discuss Section 319 of the CrPC, which allows courts to proceed against persons who appear to be guilty of an offense during an inquiry or trial. Before delving into Section 319, it is essential to understand other related provisions of the CrPC, such as Section 190, which deals with the magistrate's power to take cognizance of offenses based on complaints, police reports, or other sources.**

**Section 190 CrPC**: This section empowers magistrates to take cognizance of offenses. Understanding this provision helps in grasping the operational context of Section 319, as it sets the stage for initiating legal proceedings.

**Section 173 CrPC**: Discusses the police report submitted post-investigation. It is crucial for understanding how a magistrate might proceed against someone not named in the initial report if evidence later suggests their involvement.

**Section 204 CrPC**: Relates to the issuance of process. It is important when discussing the initial stages of legal proceedings, leading up to and supporting the use of Section 319.

**Section 319 CrPC**: Specifically, I'll focus on this section, which allows the court to act against any person not being a defendant but appearing, based on evidence during a trial or inquiry, to be guilty of the offense. This provision can be invoked at any stage of the trial or inquiry, provided sufficient evidence emerges.

**Live Case Examples**: I will share a few cases from my experience to illustrate the practical application of these provisions:

1. **Misappropriation of Funds Case**: Involving an employee from the social welfare department who misappropriated scholarship funds. Despite the police's failure to trace the accused initially, I treated the closure report as a charge sheet and issued process against the accused based on sufficient information in the first information report.

2. **Government Surveyor Case**: Concerning a surveyor accused of possessing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The special court allowed further investigation after the initial finding of guilt, illustrating the ongoing judicial process and the possibility of revisiting initial decisions based on new evidence.

**Legal Process and Judicial Actions**: In cases where individuals are not named in initial reports or charge sheets but later implicated by evidence, it is essential for the judiciary to critically evaluate such evidence. This might involve not accepting police closure reports at face value or revisiting earlier judicial decisions when new material facts come to light.

**Section 319's Flexibility**: It is a powerful tool that ensures all individuals who appear to be involved based on evidence presented during judicial proceedings are brought to justice. This provision supports the principle that legal proceedings must adapt to emerging evidence to uphold justice.

**Conclusion by speaker**: Section 319 CrPC is crucial for ensuring comprehensive justice. It allows courts to summon additional accused based on emerging evidence during a trial or inquiry, reflecting the dynamic nature of legal proceedings and the judiciary's role in adapting to new information.

Conclusion or addition from blogger perspective 

The Allahabad High Court  clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only

The Supreme Court has said a person can be summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code only after recording prima facie satisfaction to proceed but the degree of satisfaction is much stricter.

Can a Trial Court Summon a New Accused Under Section 319 of the CrPC After the Trial Has Concluded? The Supreme Court held that a trial court may summon new accused persons in a trial, as stated by Section 319 only when proceedings are pending or ongoing.

During the investigation, if there is insufficient evidence against one or more named accused, then Police can remove their name(s) or would not include their names in charge sheet. Further, In case, the accused is in custody then he may be released under section 169 Cr.

The Supreme, recently, observed that once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr. P.C

A statement made by an accused person is admissible against others who are being jointly tried with him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with him. A application made by accused under section 319 crpc without confessions has no evidentiary value 

Section 319 CrPC is closely tied to the concept of double jeopardy, which forbids an accused person from being prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This view is in line with Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution which prohibits the prosecution of a person for the same offence more than once.

On basis of Circumstantial evidence(CE) can 319 order be passed? CE is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim.

---

This restructured format presents the discussion in a logical, coherent manner, emphasizing the legal framework, practical applications, and the notes are transcript of speaker's personal judicial experiences related to Section 319 CrPC

YouTube link: .https://www.youtube.com/live/U_lg7HJRxAk?si=UzUmTvUA35oKVKHL

Property and Testamentary Law: Mutation in abeyance due to conflicting Wills

Facts and History: Unraveling the Inheritance Enigma

In the picturesque hills of Hindwadi, Belgaum, a legal saga unfolded, shrouded in the complexities of conflicting wills and disputed property rights. The story begins with the passing of Mr. Pralhad Raghavendra Desai, leaving behind a substantial estate. Two wills surfaced, each claiming legitimacy and the right to control the deceased's legacy.

Mr. Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar, backed by a will dated 2nd January 2007, and Ms. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya, supported by a will dated 24th June 2015, found themselves locked in a legal battle over inheritance. The matter escalated as mutation entries were made in favor of Ms. Chalukya based on the latter will.

Arguments of Lawyers: Dueling Legal Minds

The courtroom became the arena where legal luminaries sparred over the interpretation of laws and the validity of the mutation entry. Mr. A. A Khandeparkar, representing Mr. Doddanavar, vehemently argued that the mutation entry, certified in Ms. Chalukya's favor, should be invalidated pending civil court adjudication. Citing legal precedents, he emphasized the revenue authorities' lack of jurisdiction in determining ownership disputes arising from contested wills.

In contrast, Mr. Prasad Dani, representing Ms. Chalukya, countered by asserting the legality of the mutation entry, citing provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He argued that the entry was duly certified following prescribed procedures and should stand until a civil court conclusively determines ownership rights.

Decision of the Court: Justice Prevails

After meticulous consideration of arguments and legal provisions, the Bombay High Court delivered its verdict, bringing clarity to the convoluted legal landscape. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, presiding over the case, underscored the limitations of revenue authorities in resolving disputes entwined with contested wills.

The court ruled to keep the mutation entry in abeyance, pending civil court adjudication on ownership rights. It emphasized the need to prevent multiplicity of entries and acknowledged the indirect adjudication attempted by revenue authorities. The judgment echoed the principle that while mutation entries don't confer title, they're intertwined with issues of ownership.

Legal Provisions and Case Citation

The application was filed under *Writ Petition No. 7194 of 2021* in the Bombay High Court. The court assessed the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly Sections 149 and 150, which govern the acquisition of rights and the procedure for mutation entries.

**Case Citation:** *Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar v. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya & Ors., 2024:BHC-AS:15910*

Reactions of Public: Ramdev Baba wellness beneficiary and former CIC interview

In addition to latest information regarding the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali which is explicitly detailed in the previous blog of today. 

The interview with former CIC (and Sr Journalist) and Jahgran seems to cover broader topics about Patanjali and Baba Ramdev’s relevance in India, the trust people have in them, and their contributions to promoting Ayurveda and Yoga nationally and internationally.

**Views of Former Chief Information Commissioner and Journalists Journey with Baba Ramdev:**

- **Former Chief Information Commissioner's Views:** The transcript touches upon the work and views of a former Central Information Commissioner, who seems to have a deep familiarity with Baba Ramdev. The discussion indicates a profound respect for Ramdev’s initiatives and suggests that the commissioner has observed or studied Ramdev's activities closely, possibly relating to his books and public contributions.

  

- **Journalist's Journey with Baba Ramdev:** A journalist who has written extensively, including works on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Veer Savarkar, shares his experience and perspectives on Baba Ramdev. The journalist describes his long-standing relationship with Ramdev, detailing the significant impact Ramdev has had on the promotion of Yoga and Ayurveda. The journalist expresses a strong support and endorsement of Ramdev’s practices and philosophy, citing personal experiences and the broader benefits that Ramdev’s work has purportedly brought to many in India.

The narrative from these descriptions paints a picture of Baba Ramdev as a revolutionary figure who has significantly influenced the fields of health, wellness, and national identity through Ayurveda and Yoga. The commentary also touches on controversies and criticisms but tends to emphasize the positive impacts attributed to Ramdev’s efforts.

Supreme Court updates; Ramdev Baba vs IMA

Based on the latest update provided regarding the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali, here are the key aspects of the Supreme Court's actions and considerations:

1. **Impleading Relevant Authorities and Parties:** The Supreme Court has decided to implead the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, all licensing authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. This inclusion is significant as it expands the scope of the inquiry into the practices of not just Patanjali but also the broader pharmaceutical and consumer goods sectors.

2. **Focus on Advertisement Claims:** A major focus of the PIL now includes examining the claims made in advertisements by pharmaceutical companies. This specifically relates to the endorsement of costly medicines, with an investigation into how these endorsements influence patient choices.

3. **Doctor Endorsements:** The court is also scrutinizing the role of doctors and medical professionals in endorsing specific medicines or treatments, which can sometimes lead to the prescription of unnecessary, expensive medication over more cost-effective solutions.

4. **Influence on Patients:** There is a concern about various methods used by the healthcare industry to influence patients towards certain medical products or treatments, which may not always be in the patient's best interest.

5. **Scope of Issues Related to Allopathy Medicine Misuse:** The PIL aims to cover a wide array of issues concerning the misuse of allopathic medicine, including but not limited to:

   - Side effects of allopathic treatments not adequately disclosed to patients.

   - Over-prescription of drugs.

   - Misleading marketing practices that do not fully inform or may even misinform about the efficacy of treatments.

   - The recommendation of unnecessary medical equipment and over-the-counter products that support allopathic treatments.

6. **FMCG Company Recommendations:** The court intends to examine the role of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding their recommendations for treating various conditions. This includes everyday items such as oils for babies to more specific medical devices, and how these recommendations are marketed to the public.

7. **Overall Impact on Public Health and Consumer Rights:** The broader implication of these proceedings is to ensure consumer rights are protected against commercial practices in the healthcare sector that may prioritize profit over patient care and wellbeing.

By addressing these issues, the Supreme Court is looking to ensure that there is a fair, transparent, and ethical practice across the board in the healthcare and consumer goods sectors, particularly in how products and treatments are marketed and recommended to the public.

Supreme Court: Witness or party to suit in witness box should be treated the same

Summarized version of supreme court judgement on Witness examination and cross examination as per CPC

The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, overturned a decision from the Bombay High Court regarding the production of documents during cross-examination in civil cases. The Bombay High Court had ruled that a fresh document cannot be introduced to confront a witness who is also a party to the suit during their cross-examination, suggesting a difference between the treatment of parties to a suit and other witnesses.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that no legal distinction should be made between parties to a suit and witnesses when it comes to the introduction of documents during cross-examination. The case focused on interpreting various rules from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order 7 Rule 14, Order 8 Rule 1A, and Order 13 Rule 3. The court found that these provisions allow for the production of documents to either refresh a witness's memory or confront during cross-examination, applicable equally to all witnesses whether or not they are parties to the suit.

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarified that the law does not support differentiating between a witness and a party to the suit when they are in the witness box. Both are subject to the same procedures and can be confronted with documents as part of evidence gathering and cross-examination. This ruling aimed to ensure fairness in legal proceedings by allowing comprehensive examination opportunities, thereby aiding the discovery of truth, which the court emphasized as the ultimate goal of a trial.

This decision was delivered in the context of the case titled "Mohammed Mohammed Bin Nilofer and Another," with citation 2023 Lev SC 100061.

(Details can be read from this webpage from https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/documents-produced-cross-examination-civil-trial-confront-party-suit-witness-cpc-supreme-court-244705 )

CPC Learning: Legal Options Against Builder [Story 1 - Complex Issues of Encroachment, ULC and breach of MOU by Builder]

 

The PN Chawl Standoff: A Story of Resilience and the CPC

The PN Chawl, a haven for ten families since 1981, faced its first threat when the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) issued a demolition notice in that year. But the residents, resolute in their fight for their homes, filed an L.C. Suit (suit under Letters Patent) seeking interim relief. The court granted a stay order, putting the brakes on the demolition and initiating a legal battle that stretched over a decade.

The Lost File and the Ulterior Motive (Stages 1-3):

Unfortunately, by 1997, the file containing the L.C. Suit went missing. This was a significant setback, but not the end. The plot thickened when the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act came into play. The land, which was rightfully private property belonging to Cathelic Church instead of Amla Malik, hence was wrongly declared as surplus land by Amla Malik (Bhandari)and subsequently "acquired" from the possession holder instead of the actual owner. This act, completed in 1996, reeked of manipulation.

A Glimmer of Hope and a Broken Promise (Stages 4-6):

In 2004, the PN Chawl residents, armed with unwavering determination, approached the Mantralaya, the seat of the Maharashtra state government. Their efforts bore fruit as they secured an order for redevelopment with land compensation as per the schedule. However, financial constraints prevented them from fulfilling their end of the deal.

This paved the way for a builder to enter the scene. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in which the builder promised each member a 300 sq ft carpet area flat within 24 months. However, the builder reneged on the agreement, leading to a fresh dispute.

Taking a Stand: Legal Options for the PN Chawl Residents (Stages 7- onwards):

Faced with another broken promise and the looming threat of demolition in 2025 (after the builder purchased the land from the ULC), the PN Chawl residents had to take decisive legal action. Here's how the CPC could be their weapon:

1. Suit for Declaration (O. 30 CPC): The residents could file a suit for declaration under Order 30 of the CPC. This suit aims to obtain a court order declaring that the land in question is private property of Cathelic Church and not surplus land under the ULC Act. This would render the builder's acquisition and subsequent demolition threats null and void.

2. Suit for Injunction (O. 39 CPC): To prevent the immediate demolition, the residents could file a suit for injunction under Order 39 of the CPC. This would restrain the builder and the BMC from taking any action that could disturb their possession of the chawl until the final verdict on the land ownership is reached.

3. Revision Petition (S. 115 CPC): Considering the missing L.C. Suit file, the residents could explore filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. This petition would be addressed to a higher court, requesting it to revise the lower court's order (presumably dismissing the L.C. Suit due to the missing file) on the grounds that the missing file shouldn't have solely determined the outcome.

The Road Ahead:

The PN Chawl's fight highlights the importance of the CPC in protecting the rights of citizens. By applying the relevant provisions, the residents can navigate the legal system and seek justice. Their journey will likely involve presenting evidence of Cathelic Church’s ownership, challenging the legality of the ULC acquisition, and arguing for their right to reside in the chawl. The legal battle might be long, but with perseverance and a thorough understanding of the CPC, the PN Chawl residents have a strong chance of securing a favorable outcome.

Title: “The Litigation Odyssey: A Journey Through the CPC Maze” [Learn CPC through a Story]

 Title: “The Litigation Odyssey: A Journey Through the CPC Maze”

---

Once upon a time in the bustling city of Justicepur, two neighbors, Ramesh and Suresh, found themselves embroiled in a bitter dispute over a mango tree that stood on the boundary between their properties. The mango tree, laden with ripe fruit, became the epicenter of their legal battle.

Act 1: The Plaint

Ramesh, the aggrieved party, decided to take legal action. He approached the court with a plaint, meticulously drafted by his lawyer, Advocate Meera. The plaint invoked Order 7, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It narrated the tale of the mango tree, its sweet fruits, and how Suresh had allegedly encroached upon Ramesh’s land. The plaint prayed for the tree’s removal and compensation for the lost mangoes.

Act 2: Summons and Appearance

The court, in its wisdom, issued summons to Suresh, invoking Order 5, Rule 9. The summons arrived at Suresh’s doorstep like an unwelcome guest. Suresh, bewildered, consulted his cousin, Advocate Vikram, who advised him to appear before the court. Suresh reluctantly donned his best kurta and set off to face the legal storm.

Act 3: Written Statement

In the courtroom, Suresh presented his written statement, invoking Order 8, Rule 1. His statement was a tapestry of denial, woven with threads of counter-claims. He argued that the mango tree had always been there, and it was Ramesh who had encroached. Suresh’s lawyer, Advocate Priya, eloquently pleaded his case.

Act 4: Framing of Issues

Judge Justice Verma donned his black robe and spectacles. He framed the issues, invoking Order 14, Rule 1. The courtroom buzzed with anticipation. The key issues emerged:

1. Was the mango tree indeed on Ramesh’s land?
2. Did Suresh encroach, or was it the other way around?
3. How many mangoes were lost?

Act 5: Examination of Witnesses

The courtroom transformed into a theater. Ramesh’s elderly mother, Ammaji, took the stand. She recounted tales of climbing the mango tree as a child. Suresh’s cousin, Babu Bhai, followed, claiming he’d seen Ramesh planting the tree. The court invoked Order 18, Rule 4 for cross-examination, and the lawyers danced the legal tango.

Act 6: The Grand Hearing

The final act arrived—the grand hearing. Advocates Meera, Vikram, and Priya presented their closing arguments. They invoked Order 20, Rule 1 and cited precedents. The judge listened, scribbling notes. The mango tree seemed to sway in anticipation.

Act 7: Judgment and Decree

Judge Verma, with a flourish of his quill, delivered the judgment. The mango tree belonged to Ramesh, but Suresh had rights to the fallen mangoes. The decree, invoking Order 20, Rule 6, declared:

• Ramesh could keep the tree.
• Suresh owed Ramesh 50% of the mangoes.
• Both parties were to share the tree’s shade.

And so, the mango tree saga ended—a blend of justice, bitterness, and ripe fruit. Ramesh and Suresh left the courtroom, their kurta pockets filled with legal wisdom. As they parted ways, they wondered if the tree would ever bear fruit again.

And thus concluded the litigation odyssey—a journey through the labyrinthine CPC, where justice unfolded like petals of a lotus in the monsoon rain.

---

Disclaimer: This story is fictional, and any resemblance to real persons or mango trees is purely coincidental.