In Brief
The appellant was named in an FIR for murder but not chargesheeted. The respondent (complainant) applied twice under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant as an additional accused. The Trial Court rejected both applications. The High Court later set aside the second rejection, finding patent illegality. The Trial Court then summoned the appellant after the main trial had concluded. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's revisional order relates back to the date of the original rejection, making the subsequent summoning order effective despite the trial's conclusion. Fresh proceedings must be conducted in a separate trial, with all witnesses re-heard, protecting the appellant's rights under Section 319(4).
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.