Skip to Content

7th March, 2025

1). "Supreme Court: No Illegality in Considering S.319 CrPC Application After Trial, Based on HC's Revision Order"

Case Background

This case originated from an FIR lodged on April 14, 2009, which accused five individuals of offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to a murder case.

  • Initially, the charge sheet was filed only against two accused persons, while investigations continued for the remaining accused.
  • On October 27, 2009, the trial court framed charges against these two accused.
  • In 2011, Irshad and Irfan were convicted.
  • A second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (to summon additional accused) was rejected in 2010 by the trial court.
  • The High Court, in 2021, set aside the rejection order and directed the trial court to reconsider the summoning application.
  • In 2024, the trial court summoned the additional accused, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

The Supreme Court examined two key legal questions:

  1. Did the High Court have the authority to overturn the Trial Court's rejection of the Section 319 application filed by respondent no. 2?
  2. Could the Trial Court summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the trial had concluded, even though the High Court had not stayed the trial?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Key Observations by the Court

  1. Purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
    • The Court emphasized that Section 319 Cr.P.C. exists to ensure no guilty person escapes trial.
    • It is intended to empower courts to include additional accused persons if new evidence emerges during trial.
  2. High Court’s Power in Revisional Jurisdiction
    • The High Court has the power to correct errors made by the trial court when rejecting a Section 319 application.
    • Once the High Court overturns the rejection, its order replaces the trial court’s original decision.
  3. Summoning of Additional Accused Even After Trial Conclusion
    • The Supreme Court ruled that even if a trial has concluded while the High Court’s revision order is pending, the trial court can still reconsider a Section 319 application.
    • The High Court’s order is treated as if it was passed at the time of the trial court’s original rejection.
  4. Trial Court Not “Functus Officio” (Not Legally Inactive)
    • Normally, after a trial is completed, the trial court loses authority over the case.
    • However, since the High Court’s order “relates back” to the date of the original rejection (2010), the trial court was still authorized to act on it even in 2024.
  5. The Supreme Court Clarified Key Conditions for Using Section 319 Cr.P.C.:
    • There must be an ongoing trial at the time the application was initially filed.
    • Evidence must emerge during trial indicating the involvement of additional accused.
    • The additional accused should be tried together with the original accused.

Court Ruling/Decision

  • The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that its 2021 order validly directed the trial court to reconsider the summoning application.
  • The trial court was correct in summoning the additional accused in 2024, even though the trial had already concluded.
  • The principle of “relation back” applied, meaning that the High Court’s revision order effectively replaced the trial court’s 2010 rejection order.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with ensuring the additional accused appear for trial.

Legal Provisions 

  • Section 319 Cr.P.C.: Allows courts to summon additional accused if evidence during trial indicates their involvement.
  • Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court: If a trial court wrongly rejects a Section 319 application, the High Court can correct this error.
  • Principle of "Relation Back": A revisional order of the High Court replaces the original trial court's order, making it legally effective from the date of the original rejection.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
    • The ruling strengthens the power of courts to summon additional accused even after trial conclusion, provided the High Court had previously intervened in revisional jurisdiction.
  2. Ensures No Guilty Person Escapes Trial
    • The decision prevents situations where accused individuals escape trial due to procedural technicalities.
  3. Strengthens the Role of High Courts in Revisional Jurisdiction
    • This ruling confirms that High Courts can intervene to correct trial court errors, and their orders will have retroactive legal effect.

The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes that:

  • A High Court’s revision order on a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application replaces the trial court’s original orderand is considered effective from the date of the trial court’s decision.
  • A trial court can summon additional accused even after the trial ends, provided the High Court had earlier set aside the rejection order.
  • This ensures that no accused person is left out of the trial due to procedural delays.

The ruling reinforces the principle of justice over procedural technicalities and ensures a fair trial process.

Case Title: JAMIN & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2). "J&K High Court: Trial Court Lacks Inherent Powers to Recall or Review its Own Final Orders" 

Case Background

  • The petitioners were facing trial under multiple FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
  • While their trials were pending, they were detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) and transferred to jails in Uttar Pradesh.
  • The petitioners filed applications in the trial court seeking a transfer back to a jail in Jammu & Kashmir.
  • The trial court allowed the request and ordered their transfer to Mattan Jail, Anantnag, in Kashmir.
  • The prosecution challenged this order, and the trial court later recalled it, relying on a judgment of the High Court.
  • The petitioners then challenged the recalling order before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

Issues of the Case

  1. Does a trial court have the power to review or recall its own final orders in a criminal case?
  2. Was the trial court correct in recalling its earlier order, which transferred the custody of the petitioners?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

  • The case was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.


Key Observations by the Court

  1. Trial Courts Cannot Review Final Orders
    • The trial court had no power to recall its own final order once it had decided on the transfer of custody.
    • The only option available to the aggrieved party (prosecution) was to challenge the order before the High Court.
  2. Wrongful Reliance on a Suspended Judgment
    • The trial court relied on a judgment of the High Court while recalling its order.
    • However, this judgment had been stayed (suspended) by the division bench of the High Court.
    • Since the judgment was not in force, the trial court wrongfully relied on it to recall its order.
  3. Reaffirming Supreme Court’s Position
    • The High Court relied on the Adalat Prasad case, which confirmed that criminal courts do not have the power to review their final orders.

Court Ruling/Decision

  • The High Court set aside the trial court’s recalling order, stating that it was legally invalid.
  • The trial court had no power to review its final order, so its decision to recall the custody transfer order was incorrect.
  • The High Court left it open for the prosecution to seek an appropriate legal remedy, such as filing an appeal.

Legal Provisions Discussed

  1. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
    • This section states that a criminal court cannot alter or review its final order except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
    • The High Court emphasized that once a trial court passes a final order, it cannot review or modify it.
  2. Supreme Court Ruling in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Others (2004) 7 SCC 338
    • The Supreme Court had overruled the earlier position of law, which allowed criminal courts to review their own orders.
    • The judgment clarified that once a court passes a final order, the only remedy available is to approach a higher court.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Clarifies the Limitations on Trial Courts
    • This ruling reinforces the restriction under Section 362 CrPC, making it clear that trial courts cannot modify their final orders.
  2. Protects the Principle of Judicial Finality
    • It prevents trial courts from repeatedly changing their own decisions, ensuring stability in judicial proceedings.
  3. Emphasizes Correct Application of Precedents
    • The decision warns lower courts against relying on judgments that have been stayed or overruled, ensuring proper application of legal precedents.
  • Trial courts cannot review or modify their final orders in criminal cases, except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
  • If a party is dissatisfied with a trial court’s order, they must challenge it before the High Court, not seek a review from the same trial court.
  • The trial court wrongly relied on a suspended judgment to recall its order, making the recall order invalid.
  • The High Court reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adalat Prasad, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation.

This judgment strengthens the principle of judicial finality and ensures that criminal courts follow proper legal procedures when deciding cases.

Case-title: FEROZ AHMAD ZARGAR & OTHERS vs UT OF J&K AND OTHERS

3). Delhi High Court: "Lying Close to Minor Victim Outrages Modesty, But Not Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act" If No Overt Sexual Intent

Case Background

In this case, a paternal uncle of a 12-year-old girl was accused of pressing the lips of the minor victim and lying down next to her during her four-day visit to her grandmother’s house. The minor had been abandoned by her mother at the age of four, and it was alleged that the petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct. The trial court framed charges under Section 354 of the IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). The accused challenged these charges before the Delhi High Court.

Issues of the Case

  1. Does the act of pressing lips and lying close to a minor amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the IPC?
  2. Does this act also qualify as aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

  • The case was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

Key Observations

  1. Outraging Modesty Under IPC
    • The act of pressing lips or lying down next to a minor can be considered outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of IPC.
    • The act constitutes the use of criminal force, as defined under Section 350 of IPC.
    • Even minimal physical contact, when done with intent or knowledge that it is likely to outrage modesty, is enough to invoke Section 354 IPC.
  2. No Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO
    • To establish aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of POCSO, sexual intent must be proven.
    • In this case, the victim did not allege any overtly sexual act or intent in her recorded statements.
    • Since no sexual intent was inferred, the act did not meet the legal threshold for Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
  3. Trial Court’s Defective Order
    • The trial court's order framing charges was "non-speaking", meaning it did not explain how the charge under Section 10 of POCSO was made out.
    • The High Court emphasized that trial courts must give clear reasons for framing charges, as such orders are later examined by appellate courts.
    • The Court also criticized the practice of trial courts passing vague, proforma orders without proper reasoning.

Court Ruling/Decision

  • The High Court upheld the framing of charges under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of the minor victim.
  • The High Court discharged the accused under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, as sexual intent was not established.
  • The Court criticized the trial court for passing an order without reasoning, emphasizing that charges must be framed with proper legal justification.

Legal Provisions Discussed

  1. Section 354, IPC – Outraging the modesty of a woman through criminal force.
  2. Section 350, IPC – Definition of criminal force.
  3. Section 10, POCSO Act – Aggravated sexual assault on a minor, requiring sexual intent.

Significance

  1. Clarifies Legal Distinction – The judgment differentiates between outraging modesty under IPC and aggravated sexual assault under POCSO, emphasizing that sexual intent is a key factor in POCSO cases.
  2. Protects Rights of Accused – Ensures that not every act involving a minor is automatically classified as aggravated sexual assault, preventing misuse of stringent POCSO provisions.
  3. Importance of Judicial Reasoning – Highlights the need for trial courts to provide clear and detailed justifications when framing charges, rather than issuing vague or proforma orders.
  4. Ensures Fair Trial Process – Reinforces that arguments made by both parties must be properly addressed, ensuring transparency and fairness in judicial proceedings.
  5. Sets Precedent for Future Cases – Establishes a judicial benchmark for interpreting Section 10 of POCSO, guiding courts in similar cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct against minors.

The Delhi High Court ruled that while pressing a minor’s lips and lying close to her may amount to outraging modesty under IPC, it does not necessarily constitute aggravated sexual assault under POCSO unless there is clear sexual intent. The Court upheld the charge under Section 354 IPC but discharged the accused under Section 10 POCSO, citing the absence of sexual intent. Additionally, it criticized trial courts for issuing cryptic, non-speaking orders and emphasized the importance of well-reasoned judicial decisions to ensure fairness and legal clarity.

Case Title: MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

4). "Kerala High Court: No Basis for Concurrent Running of Sentences When Offences Are Unrelated" 

Case Background

The petitioner was convicted in two separate cases for different crimes. In 2015, he was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act by a Special Judge in New Delhi. Later, in 2017, he was convicted under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate should have suo moto applied Section 427 of CrPC to allow his second sentence to run concurrently with the first, instead of consecutively.

Issues of the Case

  1. Does Section 427 of CrPC apply when convictions arise from separate, unrelated crimes?
  2. Should the Magistrate have invoked Section 427 of CrPC suo moto in this case?
  3. Was the petitioner’s right affected due to the consecutive running of sentences?

Court Observations

  • Bench – Justice C. Jayachandran
  • The Court observed that Section 427 CrPC applies only when a person is convicted for a subsequent offenceand does not automatically allow concurrent sentences.
  • The two convictions were for different crimes committed in separate transactions, and there was no connection between them.
  • The Magistrate was aware of the previous conviction but deliberately did not order concurrent sentences, which was a conscious judicial decision.
  • The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Magistrate made an error and ruled that concurrent sentences cannot be granted as a general rule when the offences are unrelated.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB (2022) was relied upon, reinforcing that concurrent sentences should not be granted in cases involving separate crime numbers and judgments.

Court Ruling

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 427 CrPC did not apply in this case because the convictions arose from completely different offences in separate incidents. The Court ruled that sentences should run consecutively unless the sentencing court explicitly orders otherwise, and in this case, the Magistrate consciously decided against concurrency. The Court also rejected the argument that the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit(the act of the Court shall prejudice no one) applied, as there was no judicial error in sentencing.

Legal Provisions

  • Section 427 of CrPC – Allows concurrent running of sentences for a person convicted of a subsequent offence, but only if the court specifies it.
  • IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 506(ii), 109 r/w 149 – Related to unlawful assembly, house trespass, and criminal intimidation.
  • Section 27(1) of the Arms Act – Punishes the use of firearms in the commission of an offence.
  • NDPS Act, Sections 29 and 21(c) – Relating to conspiracy and possession of commercial quantities of drugs.

Significance

  1. Clarifies Application of Section 427 CrPC – Confirms that concurrent sentencing is not automatic and applies only if the court explicitly states so.
  2. Prevents Misuse of Section 427 CrPC – Ensures that criminals convicted for separate, unrelated offences do not get an undue advantage by demanding concurrent sentences.
  3. Reinforces Judicial Discretion – Emphasizes that sentencing courts have the authority to decide whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
  4. Relies on Supreme Court Precedent – Strengthens the legal position by aligning with the Apex Court’s ruling in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB (2022).
  5. Ensures Fair Punishment – Establishes that serious offenders cannot escape full punishment by arguing for concurrent sentences in unrelated crimes.

The Kerala High Court upheld the principle that sentences for unrelated crimes should generally run consecutivelyunless the court specifically orders otherwise. It found no judicial mistake in the Magistrate’s decision and rejected the petitioner’s claim that his rights were affected. By relying on Supreme Court precedent, the ruling reaffirms that concurrent sentencing is not a default rule but a judicial discretion based on case-specific factors. The judgment ensures that criminals serving multiple sentences for different crimes face appropriate legal consequences rather than benefiting from concurrent sentencing without valid grounds.

Case Title: B Ajai v State of Kerala 

Case No: CRL.MC NO.8795 OF 2024

5).  Kerala High Court: Accused Has No Absolute Right to Demand Further Investigation, But Courts Can Intervene in Incomplete or Malafide Probes"

Case Background

The petitioner was accused of forging two powers of attorney by falsifying signatures and thumb impressions and submitting a false solvency certificate to the Excise Department to obtain a liquor shop license. The case was registered in 2015 for offences allegedly committed in 1993-94, and the final report was filed in 2018. The petitioner argued that he was merely representing the complainant and her husband as their power of attorney holder and that the documents were prepared by another person. He claimed that the case was registered after a long delay to avoid revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant and others. The petitioner sought further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC, arguing that a fair investigation is his fundamental right under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Issues of the Case

  1. Does an accused have an absolute right to demand further investigation?
  2. Under what circumstances can courts order further investigation?
  3. Was the investigation in this case fair, or was it influenced by external factors?

Court Observations

  • Bench – Justice A. Badharudeen
  • The Court ruled that an accused has no absolute right to demand further investigation or dictate how an investigation should be conducted.
  • However, courts have the power to intervene if the investigation appears biased, incomplete, or influenced by foul play, as held in the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013).
  • The Court noted that further investigation was necessary to determine who actually produced the forged documents since the petitioner claimed he was authorized to act on behalf of the complainant, while the prosecution alleged he had forged the documents without authorization.
  • The Court also took note of the 22-year delay in registering the crime, raising concerns about the motive behind the prosecution.
  • The Court clarified that not only constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) but also other competent courts can order further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC before the trial begins.

Court Ruling

The Kerala High Court allowed the petition and ordered further investigation, holding that additional inquiry was necessary to determine the actual producer of the forged documents. The Court reaffirmed that while an accused cannot demand further investigation as a right, it can be granted if the existing investigation is unfair, incomplete, or influenced by malafide intentions.

Legal Provisions

  • Section 173(8) of CrPC – Allows further investigation even after the filing of the final report.
  • Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 of IPC – Related to forgery, using forged documents, and cheating.
  • Section 34 of IPC – Applies when multiple people act with a common intention.
  • Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – Guarantee the right to a fair investigation and trial.

Significance

  1. Clarifies Limits on Accused’s Rights – Confirms that an accused cannot demand further investigation as a matter of right but can seek it in justified cases.
  2. Ensures Fair Investigation – Protects accused persons from biased or unfair investigations, ensuring justice is served impartially.
  3. Recognizes Court’s Power – Confirms that both constitutional and lower courts can order further investigation before the trial begins.
  4. Strengthens Judicial Oversight – Ensures judicial intervention in flawed investigations and prevents misuse of investigative processes.
  5. Addresses Delay in Prosecution – Highlights concerns about delayed criminal cases and their impact on justice and fairness.

The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that while an accused cannot dictate an investigation, courts can order further investigation if the initial probe appears biased, incomplete, or unfair. By relying on Supreme Court precedent in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013), the Court ensured that judicial oversight is maintained to protect fundamental rights. The ruling reinforces that justice should not be compromised due to flawed investigations or delayed prosecutions, ultimately strengthening the principles of fair trial and due process.

Case Title: George Cyriac v State of Kerala 

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 7443 OF 2023

6th March, 2025