Skip to main content

‘Prior notice’ is a necessity before impleading a person as an additional accused under S. 319 CrPC

In M. Basappa v. State, Karnataka High Court while deciding a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC,  held that the order passed by the trial court whereby it allowed the petitioners to be impleaded as additional accused, was not sustainable.
The petitioners challenged the above mentioned order on the grounds that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before passing of the impugned order whereby they were impleaded as additional accused on the ground that prosecution showed that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offence.
The High Court perused the record and came to the conclusion that no notice was issued by the trial court on the application filed under Section 319 CrPC and no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to be heard before considering the said application, which was a legal requirement.
The High Court held it to be a dictum of the Court that before considering an application under Section 319 CrPC, a criminal court must issue prior notice to the person before ordering him to be impleaded as an additional accused in any criminal case; without which such order shall be unsustainable. It was further held that the Court had to take extra caution to satisfy itself that strong evidence exist against any person before summoning him as an accused. Accordingly, the Court held that since the trial court failed to follow the above dictum, the impugned order was unsustainable and was thereby quashed

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more