Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIV: General Provisions As to Inquiries and Trials
Section 319: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
If evidence during an inquiry or trial shows that a person who is not an accused has committed an offence for which they could be tried with the accused, the court can proceed against them, summoning or arresting them, or detaining them if present.
- Proceedings against that person start afresh and the witnesses are reheard.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 319 lets the court proceed against a person who is not an accused, if it appears from the evidence during an inquiry or trial that he committed an offence for which he could be tried with the accused. It ensures the real culprits do not escape just because the police left them out of the charge sheet.
When it can be used
Any time after the charge sheet is filed and before judgment is pronounced. The evidence can be the material collected during inquiry or the evidence recorded at trial, including examination in chief, even before cross examination.
A higher standard than charge
The power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly. The test is more than a prima facie case as at the stage of framing charge, but short of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Strong and cogent evidence is required.
Effect
Proceedings against the newly added person must begin afresh and witnesses be reheard. A person discharged earlier, or not charge sheeted, can be summoned under this section if the standard is met.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 INSC 21
A Constitution Bench held that the power can be exercised at any time after the charge sheet and before judgment; the test is "more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge" but short of satisfaction that the evidence would lead to conviction if unrebutted.
Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 27
Reiterated the Hardeep Singh standards: the power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person, not in a casual and cavalier manner.
Common mistakes
- Summoning a person on mere probability of complicity.
- Continuing the trial against the added person without hearing witnesses afresh.
Read with: Section 193 CrPC, Section 358 BNSS
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 319
-
Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Issue arose whether the courts below, in the attending facts and circumstances, justified in dismissing the application for summoning additional accused.
-
Rajan v. The State of Haryana
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and ss.25, 27 of the Arms Act; and delay at the instance of…
-
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable.
-
Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Whether the Court of Session, without itself recording evidence, can summon a person to stand trial in exercise of its powers u/s.193, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as an accused (along with others committed to it by…
-
Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court quashing the summons issued against respondent u/s.319 CrPC by the trial court.
-
Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Whether the evidence led, in the instant case, justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold.
-
Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused.
-
Akhilesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s summoning order.
-
Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi Alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. Etc.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents.
-
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no.2 u/s.319 of…
-
Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case qua the appellants-parents.
-
Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Issue arose as regards summoning a person as accused for facing the trial, when the said person was named in the FIR but not chargesheeted.
-
Asim Akhtar v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.
-
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for…
-
The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka
Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption…
-
Shankar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Whether there is sufficient material against the appellant prompting the trial court to pass a summoning order u/s. 319 Cr.P.C.
-
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the…
-
Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and ss.272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860; whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico…
-
N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the…
-
State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to…
-
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other…
- Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
- Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
- Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
- Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of
- Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
- Vikas Rathi v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
- Juhru & Ors. v. Karim & Anr.
- Sunil Saini & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
- Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U. P. & Another
- Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Rajbir Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors.
- Nahar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr.
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. The State of Karnataka
- State of Rajasthan v. Bablu @ Om Prakash
- Dayle De’Souza v. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and Another
- Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. The State of U. P. & Anr.
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P. & Anr.
- Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
- The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K. Shobana Etc. Etc.
- Kapil Agarwal and Others v. Sanjay Sharma and Others
- Ajay Kumar @ Bittu & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. M/S Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.Ce F G H
- Saeeda Khatoon Arshi v. State of UP & Anr
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- Mani Pushpak Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
- Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
- G H Manjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Shiv Prakash Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State Through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi
- Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Periyasami and Ors. v. S. Nallasamy
- Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
- Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab & Others
- S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak & Others
- N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas
- Girish Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
- Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Amrutbhai Shambhubhai .Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.
- Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka
- Balveer Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Hardei v. State of U.P.
- Usmanganjadambhaivahora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Sushil Ansal v. State Through CBI
- Jogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar &Anr.
- Ramanlal and Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- R. N. Agarwal v. R. C. Bansal & Ors.
- Prem Kumar Gulati v. State of Haryana and Another
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
- Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Sherish Hardenia & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr.
- Bharati Tamang v. Union of India & Ors.
- Girraj Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Manjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Vikas v. State of Rajasthan
- Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
- Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Mohit Alias Sonu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
- Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and Anr.
- Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &Ors.
- Jile Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
- Jalpat Rai & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed v. Ram Deo Tyagi & Ors.
- Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Narayan Dutt and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.