Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down the power of the Court under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice KM Joseph. 

Facts  

• A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 27.06.2015 by the wife (second respondent) of the deceased, alleging that her husband (who was a driver for the appellant) was murdered by his employer (the appellant) with help from friends. 
• In the FIR, she stated that her husband left for work to meet the appellant, called at 2 p.m. saying he was going to Gola and would return by evening, but then his phone was switched off and an unidentified dead body was found. 
• After police investigation, a chargesheet was filed against three persons, not including the appellant. 
• Later, the wife deposed that:  
  • Her husband left home on 23.06.2015 saying his car owner had called him 
  • He called at 2 p.m. saying he was going to Gola with the appellant 
  • When she called the appellant, he told her the car was found near the Government tubewell with her husband's slippers inside 
  • She and her family were convinced the appellant murdered her husband with help from friends 
• Based on this deposition, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 5th August 2017. 
• The Sessions Judge ordered to summon the appellant on 11.09.2018, a decision upheld by the High Court. 
• The matter was hence before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved  

• Whether the Court can take additional prosecution in the present facts under Section 319 of CrPC? 

Observation 

• The Court observed that the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) should be followed in this case. 
• The Supreme Court noted that under Section 319 CrPC, power should be exercised only when "strong and cogent evidence" exists, not in a "casual and cavalier manner," and the test requires evidence "more than prima facie case" but short of evidence that would lead to conviction if unrebutted.  
• The Court further held that for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC the deposition need not have suffered cross examination. 
• The Court held that the Sessions Court should be directed to consider the matter afresh. 
• Hence, the Court allowed the appeal. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with the power of Additional Prosecution of Court under Section 319 of CrPC. 
• The Court in this case reiterated that the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) for the purposes of additional prosecution under Section 319 CrPC.