Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Sessions Court's Authority to Summon Additional Accused. Judgment affirms that summoning additional accused is procedural and does not equate to taking cognizance twice.
News Report: In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Bharatpur, which had declined to summon additional accused post-committal of a case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur on September 15, 2025, in the case of Man Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, underscores the Sessions Court's powers under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to take cognizance of offences and summon additional accused after committal by a Magistrate.
The court held that once a case is committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the bar under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is lifted, granting the Sessions Court full authority to take cognizance of the offence. This includes the power to summon additional accused, which is deemed incidental to the initial cognizance of the offence and does not necessitate a fresh committal.
The judgment arose from a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's decision, which had determined that cognizance could not be taken twice. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi and others, argued that the trial court's reasoning was flawed and contrary to established legal principles. The court agreed, emphasizing that the summoning of additional accused is a procedural act and not a second cognizance.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including Raghuvans Dubey v. State of Bihar and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, the High Court reinforced that the Sessions Court's duty is to identify all real offenders once cognizance of an offence is taken. The judgment clarifies that summoning additional accused is part of the process initiated by taking cognizance of an offence.
The trial court's finding of inadequate evidence against additional accused was also scrutinized, with the High Court noting the absence of cogent reasoning to support this conclusion. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed to suffer from material irregularity and illegality.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision petition, vacating the interim order, and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the observations made and established legal precedents.
Bottom Line:
Sessions Court can summon additional accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C. after the committal of the case by the Magistrate, and such summoning does not amount to taking cognizance twice.
Statutory provision(s): Section 193 Cr.P.C., Section 209 Cr.P.C., Section 397 Cr.P.C., Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2779138
