Clarifying the Scope of Section 193 CrPC – Sessions Court’s Power to Summon Additional Accused at the Committal Stage

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 930) resolves a recurring procedural controversy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Can a Court of Session, on receiving a case committed to it under Section 209, straightaway summon a person not chargesheeted by the police, on the strength of the materials contained in the police papers, without invoking Section 319 and without recording fresh evidence?

Answering in the affirmative, the Court restates the architecture of “cognizance” under the CrPC, harmonises seemingly conflicting dicta in Dharam Pal, Kishun Singh and Balveer Singh, and cements the Sessions Court’s proactive duty under Section 193 to bring every prima-facie offender to trial at the threshold itself.

2. Factual Background

2018: Victim (Shivwati) found murdered; FIR names only Ajay Kumar.
2019: Crime Branch files charge-sheet against Ajay alone; Petitioner (Kallu Nat) dropped.
11 Mar 2019: Magistrate commits the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 (exclusively triable).
02 Apr 2019: Husband (informant) moves an application under Section 193 before the Sessions Court to summon Kallu Nat.
07 Jun 2024: After examining CDRs, witness statements and post-mortem report, the Sessions Judge summons the petitioner for offences under Sections 302 & 376 IPC.
03 Apr 2025: Allahabad High Court dismisses petitioner’s revision, relying on Dharam Pal.
05 Aug 2025: Supreme Court affirms, detailing the interplay between Sections 190, 193, 209 & 319 CrPC.

3. Summary of the Judgment

Sessions Court can, at the post-committal pre-trial stage, summon any person whose involvement appears from the police papers, without resort to Section 319.
Cognizance of an offence is taken once – ordinarily by the Magistrate under Section 190; the Sessions Court’s power under Section 193 is not a “second cognizance” but an incidental continuation of the original cognizance.
Sections 207/208 & 209 demonstrate that the Magistrate must apply judicious mind before committal, thereby taking cognizance of the offence, not of particular persons.
Upon committal, Section 193 lifts the bar and vests the Court of Session with complete original jurisdiction over the “case” – empowering it to add any offender revealed by the record.
Section 319 remains available later if fresh evidence during trial discloses further involvement; but it is not the exclusive mechanism.
Petitioner’s argument of “double cognizance” rejected; High Court’s reliance on Dharam Pal upheld; SLP dismissed.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. (1951): Origin of the principle that cognizance is “judicial notice” of an offence.
Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar (1993): Held that Sessions Court can summon non-chargesheeted persons upon committal.
Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab (1998): Took a narrower view – Sessions Court must wait till Section 319; later overruled.
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (Constitution Bench, 2014): Restored Kishun Singh; emphasised Magistrate’s “passive” role in committal.
Balveer Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (2016) & Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State Of Karnataka (2021): Reiterated “one cognizance” doctrine.
Raghubans Dubey v. State Of Bihar (1967): Classic statement that court’s duty is to discover all offenders once cognizance of the offence is taken.

4.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Meaning of Cognizance: Judicial application of mind to an offence; can be inferred from actions (issuing process, supplying documents).
Role of Magistrate:
- Takes cognizance under Section 190 on complaint or police report.
- Must furnish documents under Section 207/208 and then commit under Section 209.
- Cognizance here is of the “offence”; the identity of every offender may still unfold.
Section 193 Framework:
- Bars Sessions Court from taking cognizance “as a court of original jurisdiction” until committal.
- Once committal occurs, bar is lifted; court inherits complete original jurisdiction over the case.
No “Second Cognizance” Problem:
- The act of summoning additional accused is not a fresh cognizance but a procedural step post-cognizance.
- Sessions Court examines existing police materials—no duplication.
Section 319 v. Section 193:
- Section 319 activates after evidence is recorded; Section 193 power works before trial starts.
- Both coexist; neither eclipses the other.

4.3 Potential Impact

Checks Investigative Lapses: Victims need not wait for trial evidence if the police omit an obvious suspect.
Efficient Trial Management: All necessary accused are arrayed at the outset; avoids de-novo trials and multiplicity of proceedings.
Victim-centric Justice: Empowers informants/complainants to move the Sessions Court directly under Section 193 when police inaction is suspected.
Guidance for Magistrates: Reminds them that committal under Section 209 is not a mindless formality; they must scrutinise the record.
Clarifies Jurisprudence: Harmonises prior confusion on “part cognizance” and strengthens the authority of Kishun Singh line of cases.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Cognizance: Legal word meaning “judicial notice”. A court “takes cognizance” when it first decides that facts alleged reveal an offence worth judicial action. No formal order is required; actions such as issuing summons or supplying papers imply cognizance.
Section 190 CrPC: Gateway provision enabling Magistrates to take cognizance upon a complaint, police report, or information.
Section 209 CrPC: When a Magistrate spots an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, he must commit the case (not merely the accused) to that court, after supplying documents.
Section 193 CrPC: Unlocks the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction after committal; lets it act as a trial court and summon further accused if the case record shows their involvement.
Section 319 CrPC: Permits a court during trial (after evidence appears) to add additional accused who seem to have committed the offence.

6. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Kallu Nat has authoritatively affirmed that a Sessions Court’s duty to ensure a full and fair trial begins immediately on committal. Section 193 is not a procedural cul-de-sac but a substantive empowerment enabling the Court to summon any prima-facie offender revealed by the police dossier. By dispelling the spectre of “double cognizance” and aligning earlier precedents, the decision advances prosecutorial efficiency, promotes victim confidence, and fortifies the criminal justice system against investigative oversights. Practitioners must henceforth view Section 193 not as a passive bridge between Magistracy and Sessions, but as an active tool for comprehensive adjudication.