JAMIN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

89. The reasoning assigned by this Court in Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (supra) and U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay reported in 1955 SCC OnLine SC 57 when read with the reasoning in Maru Ram (supra) would indicate that the order of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction relates back to and replaces the order of the Trial Court. It is of no consequence that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary as opposed to appellate jurisdiction. It is settled law that an appellate court exercises its power in the place of the original court and the order passed by such court shall have retroactive effect from the date of judgment of the Trial Court. Similarly, once the High Court, being the superior court, decides to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the purpose of rectifying any errors in the same, such order will replace the order of the Trial Court.

90. What can be discerned from the aforesaid is that if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either setting aside or modifying the order of the Trial Court for the purpose of 696 Section 319, the same would relate back to the original order passed by the Trial Court and substitute it to the extent of modification.

91. Besides above, the normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of facts or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to the relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief (See: Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623). Justice Krishna Iyer in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 770 has observed thus: “4. … It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice – subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings in this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad.” Though the aforesaid observations are in the context of civil proceedings, the legal principle enshrined therein is based on a well-known latin maxim “actus curaie neminen gravabit” – “an act of court shall prejudice no man”, which is of universal application. As a sequitur, no man should suffer because of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

92. In the present case, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application under Section 319 of the CrPC and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319. At the stage of issuing the aforesaid direction, the High Court was conscious that the trial had concluded, yet to do substantial justice, it deemed it necessary to issue such a direction. In doing so, the High Court’s order, which relates back to the date of the Trial Court’s order, did not mandate the Trial Court to do something which was barred by law because, as already noticed above, holding a joint trial is directory. Therefore, in complying with the said direction of the High Court, the Trial Court committed no act which was prohibited by law.

93. There is not an iota of doubt that if the Trial Court would have proceeded against the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC in the absence of the order passed by the High Court in the revision petition, the same would have been illegal for having being done after the conclusion of the trial of the original accused in light of the clear guidelines laid down in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra). However, by virtue of relating back of the order passed by the High Court in the revision petition, the summoning order passed by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second application under Section 319, and for this reason could be said to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial.

94. This Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) had no occasion to consider a factual situation like the one at hand, and thus the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench did not prescribe anything as regards the application of Section 319 of the CrPC in the context of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In such circumstances, the spirit underlying Section 319 requires us to adopt an approach which furthers and fulfils the object of the provision rather than rendering it nugatory.

95. If the order of the High Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction is not related back, the consequence would be that although from the evidence, it appears that there are some other persons who might be involved in the offence, yet those persons will go scot-free solely because the Trial Court erred in not exercising its powers under Section 319 which it ought to have. Relating back the High 698 Court’s revisional order to the date of the Trial Court’s order strikes a balance between the interests of the newly summoned persons and the general public/victims without causing prejudice to either.

96. While we have clarified the position of the effect of an order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction on an order passed under Section 319, we deem it equally necessary to address the mechanism for exercise of powers under Section 319 in cases where the trial is over but the revisional order relates back to the date of the rejection of an application under the said section by the Trial Court. It is axiomatic that in such a case there is no occasion for a joint trial to be conducted with the original accused persons. Therefore, when the order of the High Court passed in revision after the conclusion of trial relates back to the order of the Trial Court passed before the conclusion of trial, it must be taken to mean that the new accused would be proceeded against in a separate trial. Such a situation shall be governed by the guidelines provided in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra), more particularly, by the guideline in para 41.6 thereof which states that “if the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with.” We clarify with a view to obviate any confusion that there is no requirement for a decision by the Trial Court on the question of separation of trial in cases like the present one since the trial has already concluded in respect of the original accused and the only manner in which the order of the High Court can be given effect to is by proceeding in a separate trial qua the new accused persons.

97. We deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453. In the said case, the appellant before this Court was an accused in relation to certain offences for which he was remanded to judicial custody. Upon expiry of sixty days, the accused-appellant moved an application for the grant of default bail as no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency. However, the application came to be rejected by the Magistrate who took the view that provisions of Section 167(2) would not be applicable to the offence committed under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”). The appellant filed a revision before the High Court against the order passed by the [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Magistrate. During the pendency of the revision, chargesheet was filed by the investigating authorities. In such circumstances, although the High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that Section 167(2) of the CrPC would apply to offences under the MPID Act yet it held that the accused-appellant was not entitled to be released on bail as chargesheet had come to be filed during the pendency of the revision thereby rendering the right accrued in favour of the appellant unenforceable. The matter travelled to this Court, wherein G.B. Pattanaik, J. speaking for himself and U.C. Banerjee, J. took the view that a purposive interpretation had to be given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the CrPC and the object of the proviso to curb the mischief of indefinite and prolonged investigation had to be kept in mind while interpreting the provision. The relevant paragraphs from the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow: “10. In Bipin Shantilal Panchal (Dr) v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 1 SCC 718 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 200] , a three-Judge Bench decision, this Court referred to the proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that though the aforesaid provisions would apply to an accused under the NDPS Act, but since the charge- sheet had already been filed and the accused is in custody on the basis of orders of remand passed under other provisions of the Code the so-called indefeasible right of the accused must be held to have been extinguished, as was held by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt [(1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] . The Court observed thus: (SCC p. 720, para 4) “Therefore, if an accused person fails to exercise his right to be released on bail for the failure of the prosecution to file the charge-sheet within the maximum time allowed by law, he cannot contend that he had an indefeasible right to exercise it at any time notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime the charge-sheet is filed. But on the other hand if he exercises the right within the time allowed by law and is released on bail under such circumstances, he cannot be rearrested on the mere filing of the charge-sheet, as pointed 700 out in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 4 SCC 272 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 870].” –xxx– 13. […] In such a case, therefore, even if the application for consideration of an order of being released on bail is posted before the court after some length of time, or even if the Magistrate refuses the application erroneously and the accused moves the higher forum for getting a formal order of being released on bail in enforcement of his indefeasible right, then filing of challan at that stage will not take away the right of the accused. […] With the aforesaid interpretation of the expression “availed of” if the charge-sheet is filed subsequent to the availing of the indefeasible right by the accused then that right would not stand frustrated or extinguished, necessarily therefore, if an accused entitled to be released on bail by application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, makes the application before the Magistrate, but the Magistrate erroneously refuses the same and rejects the application and then the accused moves the higher forum and while the matter remains pending before the higher forum for consideration a charge-sheet is filed, the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would not stand extinguished thereby, and on the other hand, the accused has to be released on bail. Such an accused, who thus is entitled to be released on bail in enforcement of his indefeasible right will, however, have to be produced before the Magistrate on a charge-sheet being filed in accordance with Section 209 and the Magistrate must deal with him in the matter of remand to custody subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail and subject to the provisions of cancellation of bail, already granted in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Maharashtra [(1996) 1 SCC 722 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 202].” (Emphasis supplied) [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

98. We are conscious of the fact that unlike Section 167(2), where an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused upon the expiry of the period of sixty/ninety days, Section 319 is a discretionary provision and no right can be said to accrue in the applicant upon making of the application under Section 319. However, as held by this Court in a number of its decisions, Section 319 casts a duty on the court to ensure that any person who appears to have committed the crime must be brought before the court and tried along with other accused. In the present case, the application under Section 319 was made by the respondent no. 2 during the pendency of the trial. As per the guidelines laid down in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra), if an application under Section 319 is made before a trial court, the court must stop the trial and proceed to determine the application first before proceeding further with the trial. In the present case, the Trial Court considered the application under Section 319 of the CrPC and after rejecting the same proceeded with the trial and concluded the same. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, held that the rejection of the application under Section 319 by the Trial Court suffered from a patent illegality and thus directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application. In such circumstances, more particularly, keeping in mind the avowed objective of Section 319 of the CrPC, it cannot be held that the order passed by the High Court in revision cannot be given effect to merely because the trial came to be concluded before an order could be passed by the High Court. The present, unlike the facts in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra), is not a case wherein the application under Section 319 came to be filed or decided by the Trial Court after the conclusion of the trial. Instead, the case at hand is one wherein the application under Section 319 though decided at the correct stage, came to be decided wrongly owing to a patent illegality committed by the Trial Court. In such circumstances, an approach which gives full effect to the legislative intention behind Section 319 of the CrPC must be adopted.

99. Having discussed the position of law on the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, we shall now proceed to apply them to the facts of the present case. The sequence of applications under Section 319 of the CrPC and the consequential High Court proceedings arising therefrom are tabulated below: 702 Application under Section 319 Court Date of the Order Remarks First Application Trial Court 29.01.2010 The first application was rejected. Grounds: Investigation against the proposed accused was ongoing and remained pending. The cross-examination of PW-1 & PW-2 was incomplete. High Court 14.05.2010 The revision application against the order dated 29.01.2010 was allowed. Direction: To the Trial Court to consider application under Section 319 after the cross-examination of PW-1 & PW-2. Second Application dated 10.06.2010 Trial Court 19.07.2010 The second application was rejected on merits. Trial was concluded on 19.10.2011 – Original accused were convicted and, inter alia, sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court 14.09.2021 The revision application against the order dated 19.07.2010 was allowed on merits. Direction: To the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319 within three months from the date of the order. Note: It was noted by the High Court that the trial in respect of the original accused had already concluded. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Third Application dated 22.09.2021 (the complainant renewed the prayer under Section 319) Trial Court 21.02.2024 The third application was allowed on merits. Direction: To summon the appellants herein as accused. Note: It was recorded that the Trial Court had been authorized by the order dated 14.09.2021 of the High Court to allow the application under Section 319. High Court 01.04.2024 The application preferred by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the CrPC was dismissed and the order dated 21.02.2024 was upheld. Note: It was recorded that as per Section 319(4), the trial against the summoned accused has to be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. Therefore, the conclusion of trial in respect of the accused summoned originally would not cause any prejudice to the appellants herein.

100. What is clear from the above is that as the Trial Court rejected the application under Section 319, no summoning order could be passed before the conclusion of trial. However, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the said order and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319.

101. We have discussed in the preceding parts of this judgment that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be rendered nugatory solely because the trial was not stayed by the High Court and stood concluded before the High Court could pass the order in 704 exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will not have a bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed by way of a revisional order.

102. As discussed hereinabove, an order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would relate back to the order of the Trial Court. In the present case, the Trial Court in its discretion rejected the second application filed under Section 319 before the conclusion of trial vide order dated 19.07.2010. The High Court, more than ten years after the conclusion of trial, set aside the said order and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319 afresh. In our considered view, such order passed by the High Court on the second application under Section 319 travels back to 19.07.2010 i.e., the date when the Trial Court rejected the said application. The effect of the order of the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court cannot be considered functus officio as regards considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial. We say so because the Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, is merely giving effect to a revisionary order directing it to freshly consider the application which it had originally rejected.

103. Ordinarily, an application under the Section 319 cannot be moved after the conclusion of trial as a necessary corollary of the dictum laid down in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra). However, the peculiar facts and circumstances presented by the case on hand indicate that an application under Section 319 dated 10.06.2010 was directed to be considered afresh by the High Court vide order dated 14.09.2021 and, therefore, the third application dated 22.09.2021 was not even required, though moved by the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of the order of the High Court order dated 14.09.2021 allowing the revision petition. Accordingly, the summoning order, in exercise of the powers under Section 319, came to be passed by the Trial Court on 21.02.2024.

104. The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court vide its revisional order dated 14.09.2021. Therefore, it has to been seen as an extension of the revisional order passed by the High Court. The combined effect of the revisional order passed by the High Court and [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. the summoning order passed by the Trial Court on 21.02.2024 is that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second Section 319 application is replaced and substituted by the summoning order dated 21.02.2024. Thus, although the summoning order in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, after the conclusion of the trial, yet it would be deemed to have been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by this Court in Maru Ram (supra) and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (supra). Thus, as the summoning order can be deemed to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial, there is no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed with the appellants in the manner envisaged under Section 319 of the CrPC. As the summoning order passed in compliance with the order passed by High Court in revision takes effect from the date of the original order, this ensures that there is compliance with the dictum laid in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) that the summoning order has to be necessarily passed before the conclusion of the trial.

105. We are also of the view that the relating back of the order of the High Court is not going to cause any prejudice to the appellants. Considering that the original trial has already concluded, there will have to be a separate trial so far as the appellants are concerned. Section 319(4)(a) takes care of the rights of the newly summoned persons by providing that “the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard”.

106. In view of the aforesaid, we have arrived at the conclusion that the order passed in revision by the High Court cannot be rendered ineffective merely on procedural grounds especially when it involves substantive rights of the parties and seeks to cure a patent illegality. However, it is apposite to clarify in the same breath that although the law allows for travelling back of the revisional order of the High Court, yet it is far from ideal to do so after the passage of a substantial period of time, in this case, ten years after the conclusion of trial. The correct approach to be adopted in cases like this is that the High Court should direct the Trial Court to stay its proceedings till the revision proceedings in respect of Section 319 are disposed of. At the same time, the High Court must also expedite the revision proceedings so as to ensure that unreasonable delay is not caused in the conclusion of trial.

107. The High Court in its impugned order has rightly observed that the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed in compliance 706 with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It further correctly observed that the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was in furtherance of the object of Section 319 of the CrPC which is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of a crime are arraigned as accused to face trial. The High Court was also right in observing that the conclusion of the trial qua the original accused would not prejudice the appellants in any manner and their interest would be safeguarded by sub-section (4) of Section 319 of the CrPC. The High Court also noted that the summoning order, though having been passed after the conclusion of the trial, cannot be said to be vitiated in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. For all the reasons that we have assigned in the preceding parts of this judgment, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. (vii) Right of the proposed accused to be heard at the stage of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC

108. Before we part with the matter, we deem it necessary to address the submissions of the appellants as regards the violation of their right to be heard before the passing of the order in Revision Petition 400/2010 by the High Court.

109. As regards the right of the proposed accused to be heard before an application under Section 319 is allowed by the court, we are in respectful agreement with a recent pronouncement of this Court in Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 9 SCC 108 wherein it has been held that Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. The relevant observations from the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow: “23. From the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , it is noted that an inquiry is contemplated as against a person who has been discharged prior to the commencement of the trial in terms of Section 227 CrPC as extracted above but on an inquiry, if it appears that there is evidence against such a discharged person, then power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against such a discharged person. This clearly would mean that when [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. a person who is not discharged but is to be summoned as per Section 319 CrPC on the basis of satisfaction derived by the court on the evidence on record, no inquiry or hearing is contemplated. This would clearly indicate that principle of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing a person summoned under 319 CrPC are not at all contemplated. Such a right of inquiry would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per Section 319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with other accused. –xxx– 35. This Court in the subsequent paragraphs of Jogendra Yadav [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] has also not stated that if a person is to be summoned under Section 319 CrPC to be added as an accused, then an opportunity must be given to such a person and only after hearing him, he could be added as an accused in the trial. We do not find that the ratio of Jogendra Yadav [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] turns on the said aspect. 36. However, it is contented by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Nagamuthu that what has been observed in para 9 of Jogendra Yadav [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] will make it a necessary mandate or a rule that a person who is to be summoned under Section 319 CrPC to be added as an accused will necessarily be heard before being so added. Para 9 cannot be considered to be the ratio of Jogendra Yadav [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] . Further, the context in which the observations are made in the paragraph must relate to the facts of the said case where an opportunity was in fact provided to the persons summoned therein. 708 37. Similarly, in Ram Janam Yadav [Ram Janam Yadav v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 130] , on facts, it was noticed that the person summoned was, in fact, provided an opportunity of hearing. 38. Merely because in certain proceedings the persons summoned had been provided an opportunity of being heard cannot be the same thing as stating that it is a mandatory requirement or a precondition that at the time of summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC, he should be given an opportunity of being heard. That is not the mandate of law inasmuch as Section 319 clearly uses the expression “to proceed” which means to proceed with the trial and not to jeopardise the trial at the instance of the person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a trial within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of the case and particularly against the accused who are already facing trial and who may be in custody. 39. A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC cannot hijack the trial so to say and deviate from its focus and take it to a tangent in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape trial. All that is contemplated when a person is summoned to appear is to ascertain that he is the very person who was summoned and if any summoned person fails to appear on the given date. On the appearance of the summoned person, no procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard is envisaged before been added as an accused to the list of accused already facing trial unless such a summoned person had already been discharged, in which event, an inquiry is contemplated as discussed above. 40. Thus, the contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 CrPC. It is also observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] that such a summoned person can assail a summoning order before a superior Court and will also have the right [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. of cross-examining the witnesses as well as can let in his defence evidence, if any.” (Emphasis supplied) 110. However, in the facts of the present case, the application under Section 319 was rejected by the Trial Court but the revision against such rejection was entertained by the High Court without allegedly putting the proposed accused to notice. Upon a careful perusal of the decision in Yashodhan Singh (supra), we are of the view that the right of hearing is not available to the proposed accused only in the first instance, that is only at the stage when the application is being heard for the first time. 111. However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which has enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow: “401. High Court’s powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction. 710 (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 112. The aforesaid principle was also recognised by this Court in Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra). The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: “48. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203— although it is at preliminary stage—nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other person” under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is pre-process stage or post process stage.” (Emphasis supplied) 113. In view of the principles explained in Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra), the right of hearing is available to the proposed accused at the stage of revision as the High Court by setting aside the order rejecting the application under Section 319 may revive the proceedings against the proposed accused under Section 319. Providing the proposed accused with a mandatory right of hearing allows him to defend himself against a prejudicial order that may be passed in the course of the hearing of the revision petition. 114. However, a perusal of the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Revision Petition No. 400/2010 clearly indicates that the appellants were respondent nos. 2 and 4, respectively, before the High Court. Hence, we do not find any merit in the submission of the appellants that the order rejecting the 2nd application under Section 319 of the CrPC was set aside by the High Court without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. CONCLUSION 115. We summarise our findings on the issues framed for consideration as follows: 712 a. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by respondent no. 2 under Section 319 of the CrPC as the same was found to have been passed contrary to the settled position of law, suffering from a patent illegality, thus, leading to serious miscarriage of justice. b. Once a superior court deems fit to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate court, then any rectifications to such order passed in exercise of revisional powers under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC must be treated on the same footing as rectifications made by an appellate court and as a result would relate back to the time the original order was passed. c. By virtue of relating back of the order passed by the High Court in a revision petition, the summoning order passed by the Trial Court in compliance with the order of the High Court would also relate back to the initial order rejecting the second application under Section 319, and therefore could be said to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial. d. Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. e. The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial. We say so because the Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gave effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected. f. The summoning order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court vide the revisional order dated 14.09.2021. Therefore, the same should be construed as an extension of the revisional order passed by the High Court. The combined effect of the revisional order passed by the High Court and the summoning [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. order passed by the Trial Court dated 21.02.2024 would be that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2010 rejecting the second Section 319 application stood replaced and substituted by the summoning order dated 21.02.2024. Thus, although the summoning order in the present case came to be passed on 21.02.2024, that is, after the conclusion of the trial, yet, it would be deemed to have been passed on 19.07.2010 by virtue of the law expounded by this Court in Maru Ram (supra) and Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (supra). g. Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per Section 319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with the other accused. However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. 116. For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 117. The Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps in furtherance of the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 to ensure that the appellants are produced before the court to face the trial. 118. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan