<p>The Supreme Court has said a court should be more than prima facie satisfied of conviction before exercising its power to summon a person, not named as accused in either FIR or charge sheet, during the trial.</p>.<p>The top court said the power of summoning a person as accused during the trial must not be exercised mechanically.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal emphasised what is essential for exercise of the power under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime. Further the said person, who has not been named as an accused, should face trial together with the other accused, already named, it said.<br /><br /><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/antilia-case-sc-allows-3-week-interim-bail-to-ex-cop-pradeep-sharma-1225074.html" target="_blank">Antilia case: SC allows 3-week interim bail to ex-cop Pradeep Sharma</a></strong></p>.<p>"However, the court holding a trial, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned," it said in a judgement on June 2.</p>.<p>The satisfaction preceding the summon order must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction, the bench added.</p>.<p>The apex court also pointed out Section 319, Cr PC, which is a discretionary power, allowed the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. </p>.<p>"Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet," it said.</p>.<p>The court rejected a plea by Jitendra Nath Mishra against the Allahabad High Court's June 1, 2022 order which dismissed his petition to quash a summoning order issued by the Special Court in a case related to assault and abuse under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. </p>.<p>The trial court went by the deposition of the woman victim to summon the appellant.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said a court should be more than prima facie satisfied of conviction before exercising its power to summon a person, not named as accused in either FIR or charge sheet, during the trial.</p>.<p>The top court said the power of summoning a person as accused during the trial must not be exercised mechanically.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal emphasised what is essential for exercise of the power under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime. Further the said person, who has not been named as an accused, should face trial together with the other accused, already named, it said.<br /><br /><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/antilia-case-sc-allows-3-week-interim-bail-to-ex-cop-pradeep-sharma-1225074.html" target="_blank">Antilia case: SC allows 3-week interim bail to ex-cop Pradeep Sharma</a></strong></p>.<p>"However, the court holding a trial, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned," it said in a judgement on June 2.</p>.<p>The satisfaction preceding the summon order must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction, the bench added.</p>.<p>The apex court also pointed out Section 319, Cr PC, which is a discretionary power, allowed the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. </p>.<p>"Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet," it said.</p>.<p>The court rejected a plea by Jitendra Nath Mishra against the Allahabad High Court's June 1, 2022 order which dismissed his petition to quash a summoning order issued by the Special Court in a case related to assault and abuse under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. </p>.<p>The trial court went by the deposition of the woman victim to summon the appellant.</p>
