In Brief
The appellant was initially charged along with six others but was discharged during investigation. When complainant witnesses later implicated him at trial, the complainant sought to summon him under Section 319 CrPC. The lower court rejected this, but on revision the High Court set aside that order and directed reconsideration. The Additional Session Judge then summoned the appellant. The appellant challenged this in revision, but the High Court dismissed the revision, noting that subsequent proceedings (notice under Section 446 CrPC) had begun. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erroneously refused to examine the correctness of the summoning order and instead relied on subsequent proceedings. The Court emphasized that the discretionary power under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence, and that subsequent proceedings cannot shield an order from judicial review.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.