In Brief
A person originally exonerated by police investigation was later summoned into a trial under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after witnesses implicated him. The trial court allowed the application to summon him. He challenged this in the High Court, but the High Court dismissed his revision on the technical ground that a subsequent procedural order (notice under Section 446 CrPC) had been issued, without examining whether the original summons order was valid. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by avoiding substantive review. The Court reaffirmed that Section 319 power is extraordinary and requires strong, cogent evidence—a test stricter than prima facie but short of conviction-level proof. Subsequent procedural orders cannot shield invalid prior orders from scrutiny. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the High Court for proper consideration."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.