 Good evening, one and all on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and through recruitment associates. We welcome you all in our endeavor to legal empowerment through resource persons who can actually give us better light on the aspects of law and beyond that. Section 319 CRPC has always eliminated the mindsets and also triggered off a lot of issues. After this larger bench judgment on Sukhpaal Singh Khaira v. the state of Punjab, there have certain guidelines which have been laid down for the purposes of Section 319 CRPC which they say that to understand any aspect it is always better to understand through an audio video mode rather than reading it. I don't say that you have to dispense with the reading. It has its own facets to understand the aspects. And once you have a speaker like Murthy Denaik who is a senior advocate from Karnataka High Court that right path, right guidelines, I believe that after this session will help the viewers to understand these aspects in a much, much illuminated manner. Before we request Mr. Murthy to share his insights, I will request Trivikram to say a few words because Mr. Murthy is from his place but though they say that all divisions are only in the mindsets, the balls are only in the mindsets, it's only the questions especially after the COVID. How do you Trivikram? Good evening Vikas Chitrath sir and good evening Murthy sir. Mr. Vikas Chitrath has said it all. I am really running short of words to say anything about Murthy sir, several reasons but I can only say that we are going to have a very enlightening session in which we are just anticipating. With this sir, once again on my personal behalf and on behalf of Beyond Law and CLC, I extend a very warm welcome to you sir, over to you. Thank you. Thank you Vikas Chitrath. Thank you Vikram. In fact it's quite some time I had not spoken on the platform of Beyond Law CLC I think last I spoke in November on the topic sameness of FIR, in fact Vikas Chitrath has been requesting me for various reasons I couldn't make it, anyway thank you once again and I must also congratulate Vikas and Beyond Law CLC who have continued on day to day basis this webinar series and it is very useful to all of us. Now coming to the topic straight away of today's discussion that is 319 CRPC and more particularly the focus being on the judgment of the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Sukwal Singh Kera versus state of Punjab which is reported as 2023 1 SCC 289. Since before I deal with this at judgment we will have to briefly refer to the provision that is section 319 CRPC. As you all are aware 319 deals with summoning of an accused as an additional accused if during the course of trial or inquiry there is some evidence which is brought before the court and in such circumstances the court is empowered to summon a particular person as an additional accused he would be summoned and asked to appear and face the chart. So broadly 3191 deals with summoning of an additional accused, the word employed there or rather the impetuous is on the word evidence if you would closely read 3191 of CRPC it says it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offense for which such person would be tried to get and then of course 31923 and all speaks about the modalities of summoning and if he is before the court then he would be he can be reminded to custody if he is not before the court then he would be summoned etc. all those modalities. Now this word evidence fell for consideration before another constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh which is reported as 2014 volume 3 SCC page 92 it could be relevant to broadly deal with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case because the present case or the present judgment in Superal Singh Kera has a close relation to the judgment of Hardeep Singh. Now in Hardeep Singh the honorable Supreme Court was considering the vital point as to at what stage can a particular person be summoned as an accused the because the focus was on the word evidence meaning thereby evidence that is elicited by a witness during course of an inquiry or trial hence exhaustively it was dealt with and the Supreme Court ruled that for the till the evidence is recorded that is evidence on both and it can always summon an additional accused immediately after filing of the charge sheet or the conflict more particularly when it is when an investigation is upon is conducted by a police and a final report is filed in terms of section 173 CRPC then the learned magistrate would proceed to take cognizance at a section 190 after applying his judicial mind then itself the concerned court has jurisdiction to invoke 319 is what is held in Hardeep Singh and various other aspects have been considered in fact the points formulated in Hardeep Singh would read it does for the benefit of the viewers I would quickly read in fact in paragraph 117 of the SEC report it is reported does what is the stage at which power in a section 319 CRPC can be exercised and whether the word evidence used in section 3191 CRPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word evidence is limited to the evidence recorded during so this was answered and it was held that section 319 CRPC significantly uses two expressions that have to be taken note of that is one inquiry to trial as a trial commences after framing of charge an inquiry can only be a pre-trial inquiry in 201 202 CRPC and the case of inquiry templated was read is coming and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in that sheet sorry I was saying some voice is cracking just check out the net part you can ask your associate to check meanwhile yes the signal is slightly weak okay I think now it is better now it is okay now it's better yeah let's see I'll ask people to put it in the chat in case is there any problem yes you can also tell me yeah so these were broadly the questions formulated in Ardeep Singh and it was answered to the effect that you need not wait till the evidence is recorded on both and accordingly it was disposed of and the important feature of Ardeep Singh's judgment is the Supreme Court dealt with the aspect of or issue of as to when a trial commences it was held that trial commences once the charge is free and not before that and prior to or anterior to the framing of charge all the stage would come within the realm of inquire so this was held by the constitution but however in one of the cases subsequent to Ardeep Singh and Ardeep Singh holds the field as far as this issue is concerned however various safeguards have been mentioned therein and the earlier proposition to the effect that one should not mechanically summon a person who is not either named in the FIR or not named in the charges altogether one should be slow and circumspect in summoning such a person because he will be relegated to the rank of an accused hence one should be very careful and unless there is sufficient material to indict a particular person and summon him to face it charge then one should not summon such a person is what has been held in Ardeep. Subsequently in one of the cases the Honorable Supreme Court had the occasion to examine a judgment of the year 2002 that is Shashi Khan Singh versus Tarkeshwar Singh wherein it was held that a person can be summoned even after completion of trial hence to throw some light or to get more clarity on the point as to when a trial culminates or to put it differently when does a criminal trial come to an end and can a person be summoned after the completion of trial hence in this backdrop the present judgment which is the topic of discussion that is Super Singh Kera versus state of Punjab came to be decided the brief facts it would be necessary to dwell and refer to the facts of this case here the petitioner was summoned in an FIR which was registered by one of the police station in Punjab for various offenses under the NDPS IT Act, Arms Act etc the charge sheet was filed against 10 accused persons originally and a second charge sheet that is an additional charge sheet was filed there also the present appellant was not named hence one thing in both the charge sheets the present appellant that is Subwal Singh Kera was not named as an accused in the trial convinced in respect of these N accused or rather 11 accused and ultimately the trial proceeded and after initial recording of the evidence the prosecution filed an application under 311 for recalling two witnesses which came to be allowed and their evidence was recorded during the course of recording of their evidence the said witnesses spoke about the present appellant and hence on that basis the prosecution filed an application under 319 CRPC saying look here there is material against the present appellant and also the application was not only filed against the present appellant but it was filed against five accused additional five accused saying that you exercise your power under 319 summoned them they sought summoning on the basis of evidence of those two witnesses and another witness that is PW1 that is what is gone out from the judgment of the Supreme Court so on the basis of these evidence of these three witnesses the prosecution sought summoning of the five accused it is also important to note that out of the 11 charge sheeted accused one was absconding hence the trial was going on in respect of only 10 accused as far as one accused is concerned the trial was split up or rather the case was split up it was bifurcated and was subsequently renumber separate number was assigned to the other case in respect of the absconding accused and in that background the when the application was filed under 319 what was spending was the main case that is as far as 10 accused persons so the learned sessions stage after completion of the trial in respect of these 10 accused persons acquitted one accused and convicted the remaining nine accused and the order of sentence was also passed on the same day that is order judgment of conviction holding the nine accused guilty and acquitting one accused as well as sentencing them was done on the same day because this is very crucial because it revolves around the sentencing part which I would deal with a little later on the very same day that is on the day when the judgment was passed and the order of sentence was also pronounced the learned sessions stage allowed the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 and summoned the appellant to face trial so it was in this background the appellant assailed the said order by filing a revision petition before the high court and the high court was pleased to dismiss the revision hence the the appellant approach the supreme court and hence the supreme court was dealing with the issue which ultimately came to be referred to the constitution of five judges the what prompted the two judge bench to refer this to the constitution bench was the decisions of the court which I referred to earlier that is shashikant Singh versus Tharkeshwar Singh which is reported as 2002 volume 5 SCC 738 and the decision of Hardeep Singh so in that as I told you earlier in Hardeep Singh the supreme court had only dealt with and authoritatively held that the trial commences once the charges are framed so the actual stage at which the trial is said to have been concluded was nowhere dealt with in Hardeep Singh's case hence that prompted the learned judges of the supreme court two judges of the supreme court to refer the matter to constitution bench and the three points were formulated broadly the first point which was referred which was formulated and point of reference was whether the trial court has the power under section 319 CRPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order to whether the trial court has the power under section 319 CRPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused is going on is ongoing or pending having been bifurcated from the main trial three what are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under section 319 CRPC so these were the three points for consideration that were formulated and ultimately it was referred to the constitution the constitution bench heard this matter for good number of days and after hearing all the learned councils appearing on both sides and also hearing the amicus who was appointed to assist the court came to a conclusion and ultimately an authority to pronouncement has been passed now before I deal with the actual decision of the court it would be necessary to broadly touch upon the submissions put forth by the learned councils more particularly the learned senior advocate for the appellate because the appellate was assailing an order of the session squad by which he was summoned under 319 on the date when the sentence was pronounced which was confirmed in essence confirmed by the High Court of Punjab hence he was before these people so broadly the contentions put forth by the appellate's council was that 319 in this case was invoked when the trial had already concluded and even the judgment and order of conviction and sentence had been pronounced and hence nothing was pending with the trial court and hence it could not have exercised the power under section 319 CRPC because 319 mandates that the power should be exercised only during trial and hence once the trial had concluded the session squad did not have any jurisdiction to exercise power under section 319 was the main limb of the argument put forth by the main limb of the argument put forth by the learned council for the appellate and also it was argued that it was in violation of section 319 CRPC and more particularly paragraph 47 of Harjeep Singh's judgment that is the reason I broadly refer to the judgment of Harjeep Singh because it has a direct bearing on this case so paragraph 47 was pressed into service and it was argued that the power under section 319 has to be exercised before pronouncement of judgment so this was the main submission that was put forth and additionally it was also contented that the accused is to be summoned only when a trial is alive so a fine distinction between a live trial and a trial which has concluded after pronouncement of judgment and in this case it was judgment of conviction and also the sentence had been passed so it was argued that once that exercise was undertaken the learned sessions did had become punctus officio hence he could not do it likewise the learned amicus curie was also the same opinion but however he had his own reasoning and broadly if I have to touch upon the gist of the contentions urged by the learned amicus it was contented that before taking cognizance under section 190 CRPC and after pronouncement of judgment the court has no power under section 319 CRPC and in view of Harjeep Singh the trial court does not have the power for summoning additional accused when trial with respect to other accused has ended and judgment of conviction has been rendered on the same date likewise the learned advocate general for the state of Punjab learned it's all the additional sources that it all were heard as I told y'all earlier but the hearing in this case was in fact it was live streamed and it went on for good number of days the state naturally it had to support the order of the learned sessions did so it was contented on behalf of the state government that 319 was introduced by the legislature with the sole intention or with the sole object that no culprit should go scot free and in order to bring home the guilt of actual accused this provision was introduced in the CRPC hence one cannot dilute the intention of the lawmakers and hence it supported the order passed by the High Court likewise the various other additional advocates general of various states were heard and even the learned additional sources until was heard and finally the Supreme Court has in paragraph now if you would take the SCC judgment it has referred to in paragraph 14 it has referred to the section in its entity and then has also referred to the 41st report of the law commission just to examine the intent or the intention behind the introduction of section 319 CRPC so all those reports have been of the relevant portion of the report pertaining to 319 has been called out and also the relevant paragraphs from Hardeep Singh's judgment has been called out and it also referred to Shashi Khan Singh's judgment in paragraph 18 of the SCC report you would find the reference to Shashi Khan Singh's judgment see in Shashi Khan Singh it would be necessary to briefly mention the facts of Shashi Khan Singh's judgment there the his brother that is one Shashi Khan Singh was murdered and trial proceeded against one Chandrasekhar Singh when the evidence was recorded it was found that Tarkesh Singh and two others had also committed or participated in the offense of Shashi Khan Singh hence the learned additional session stage exercise power under 319 in order to issue a warrant of areas so that they may be tried to gather with Chandrasekhar Singh the accused who was already facing trial the set summoning order came to be assailed before the high court by way of a criminal revision petition and it was pending for some time and during the pendency of the said criminal revision petition the trial against the main accused that is Chandrasekhar Singh came to be disposed of and he was convicted by judgment dated 16 7 2001 so the question which arose in the case in in that context was in the case of Shashi Khan Singh was whether the trial in the case in which additional accused were summoned under section 319 CRPC including Tarkesh Singh can proceed in view of the phrase who to be tried together with the accused contained in section 319 subsection 1 CRPC because the trial against the other accused had concluded with the order conviction the honorable Supreme Court held that the trial can commence as against these two accused by virtue of the summoning order so in this backdrop the honorable Supreme Court the two judges bench thought it fit to refer it to the constitution bench and as I refer to the three points for consideration they were the points of reference which were preferred so on that basis the honorable Supreme Court dealt with entire aspect revolving around 319 CRPC commencing with 232 that is acquittal 235 judgment of acquittal or conviction and copiously dealt with chapter 27 of CRPC wherein sections 253 and 254 are placed 253 and 354 are placed as you all know 353 of CRPC deals with judgment and 354 deals with language and contents of it hence these provisions were copiously considered and then in para 27 of the SCC report there is an observation to the effect that the in essence the Supreme Court has held that the trial can continue exhaustive guidelines have been laid down and before that reference has been made to the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court wherein three honorable judges had decided Ram Narang versus Ramesh Narang that is 1995 to SCC 513 and Yakub Abdul Razak Meman versus state of Maharashtra that is the the Bombay bomb last case that is the first Bombay bomb last case 2013 SCC page one and has laid down the guidelines so first it has answered the questions that were referred and you would get it at paragraph 38 in paragraph 39 the Supreme Court has bifurcated the answers which I would deal with one by one firstly the for the benefit of the audience I would once again read the first point of reference that was whether the trial court has the power under section 319 CRPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order so the Supreme Court has held that the power has to be a power under section 319 is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused and then it has held that in case of acquittal the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced hence it has bifurcated that is if the accused who has already faced trial is convicted then the power under 319 is to be exercised if provided there is an application pending or if the court soon motto finds that there is evidence against additional accused or other persons who are to be summoned as additional accused by invoking the provisions of 319 CRPC then it has to be done before the sentence is pronounced as far as the accused who have faced trial if now the second scenario would be if the accused are acquitted accused or if it is if he is a soul he or she is a soul accused or if there are number of accused if he or she is acquitted then before the judgment of acquittal is pronounced power under 319 has to be invoked and further it has been held that summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. So, in a sense the Supreme Court has held that the trial will conclude the moment the sentence is pronounced because there was certain discussion that once a case is posted for judgment then the trial comes to an end and hence 319 cannot win this is what was sought to be argued hence the Supreme Court has clarified that the trial will come to an end after imposition of sentence hence it says that the summoning order should proceed the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in case of conviction and it also says that if the order is passed on the same day it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction the same will not be sustainable. So, sine qua nonis or to put it differently the outer limit or the outer period by which the court can exercise its power under 319 is one in case of a conviction before the sentence is pronounced in case of an acquittal before the judgment of acquittal is pronounced if anything done after these two contingencies it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Now, coming to the second point for consideration that was formulated that is whether the trial court has the power under section 319 CRTC for summoning additional accused with the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused whose presence is subsequently secured is ongoing or pending having been bifurcated from the main trial to simplify the question that is formulated for the benefit of the viewers. The same point was with regard to the trial of an absconding accused. So, in essence the question deals with whether 319 can be for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of the absconding accused whose case was originally split up from the other accused who were facing trial and whose presence was subsequently secured is pending and going on but is bifurcated from the main trial. So, here the Supreme Court has answered this question to the effect that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is preceded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence subject to the evidence recorded in the split up bifurcated trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned but the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. So, it is very simple like in this case there were totally 11 accused of which one accused was shown as absconding hence the trial against him was split up or bifurcated trial against 10 accused commenced and it reached the stage of judgment. So, in such case if the court does not invoke power under 319 and if that case either ends in conviction or acquittal as the case may be then nothing can be done but in the split up trial that is a trial in respect of the split up accused is going on and certain evidence surfaces as against an additional accused then on the basis of the said evidence that was led in the subsequent trial can be made basis for summoning an accused but the court cannot bank on the original evidence even if there are some material against the proposed accused once the judgment is pronounced and order of conviction or acquittal is pronounced and in case of order of conviction sentence is also pronounced then the evidence of the first case cannot be made a basis even if there are some materials against the proposed accused. In the split up case having said that the basis would be the evidence that has been led in the split up case it cannot be combination of evidence of the first trial and combination of evidence in the second trial this is what has been held and accordingly point number two has been answered. Now point number three pertains to the various guidelines in fact exhaustive guidelines have been laid down which comments at paragraph 41.1 of the SEC report and they extend up to paragraph 41.12 meaning thereby 12 guidelines have been laid down by the Supreme Court. Now we will refer to each of the guidelines individually firstly it has been held that if the competent court finds evidence or if application under section 319 CRPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offense based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence it shall pause the trial at that stage which means that if it is before passing an order of acquittal or sentence that is much before that stage then it can stall the trial is what has been held that that is guideline number one guideline number two is the court shall there upon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereof which means once you stall the proceedings that is the further trial at a particular stage if a decision is taken or if an application is filed under 319 then you will have to first decide on the need to summon the additional accused then guideline number three if the decision of the court is to exercise the power under section 319 CRPC and summon the accused such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case so before the court wants to proceed further with the main case it has to pass the summoning order because the first guideline says that you have to fault the trial second says you have to first decide whether there is a need third says you have to if you come to a conclusion that there is a necessity to summon a particular accused by invoking 319 then before proceeding with the further trial you will have to pass the summoning order now fourth guideline is if the summoning order of additional accused is passed depending on the stage at which it is passed the court shall apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately so the court has to decide whether they have to be tried along with the accused in respect of whom the trial has already commenced and it has proceeded or else it has to be the summoned accused has to be tried separately then guideline five if the decision is for joint trial fresh trial be commenced only after securing the presence of summoned accused meaning thereby if dino trial will have to be conducted if the court invoking powers under 319 comes to the conclusion that it would be conducive to hold a joint trial then a fresh trial will have to be ordered by or rather after securing the presence of the summoned accused guideline number six is 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 accused who were being proceeded if the court decides that the trial can be conducted independently and there is no need for a joint trial then the trial can commence the trial which was faulted can proceed further guideline number seven if the proceeding paused as in para 41.1 above is in a case where the accused who had tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case it is very clear that the trial that was paused as held in guideline number one which was halted for the purpose of deciding the application under 319 or deciding the necessity for summoning continues and the accused who were tried are to be acquitted the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately there will be no impediment for the court to pass a judgment of acquittal guideline number eight is if the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial still its conclusion till its conclusion and if there is a split up bifurcated case the power under section 319 CRPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect pointing to the involvement of additional accused to be summoned in these split up bifurcated trial as I stated earlier the basis for summoning the additional accused would be the evidence that is led in the split up case and the evidence that has been recorded in the main trial cannot be the basis this is the essence of this guideline number eight now guideline number nine is if after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the court to invoke and exercise the power under section 319 CRPC the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for the hearing guideline number 10 on setting it down for re hearing the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning holding a joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly guideline 11 even in such a case at that stage of the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and dino proceedings be held and finally guideline number 12 if in the circumstance if in that circumstance the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of summoned accused as indicated earlier then two aspects are laid down a the main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused be in case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against the summoned accused hence friends these are the 12 guidelines additionally the two points for determination were also answered and I think with this judgment it is clarified and the cloud that was subsisting with regard to the aspect or regard to the question as to when does a trial conclude has been laid to rest now I hope with this judgment that is suppressing Kara if read in conjunction with Hargit Singh the law with regard to section 319 CRPC is well defined I don't think there is any scope for ambiguity hence for and with this being a constitution bench judgment which has been delivered after hearing exhaustive arguments and after considering all the long line of decisions on the set point and also on the other aspects of criminal trial will hold the field for a good number of years because according to me there is no scope for reconsideration for tinkering with any of the aspects so I think this would be of great help in deciding applications under section 319 at any stage thank you thank you sir thank you very much for enlightening us in fact I think I have overstepped by around 10 minutes that's okay that's okay sir as the reason I think we have very few questions with regard to the judgment but apparently we have something related to section 319 I think we'll take up one course by Mr Manoj Kamra sir please suggest remedy in case of refusal by magistrate 1 by 319 CRPC despite specific evidence in the audience you can file a revision petition or a petition under 482 so we can invoke 397 before the session spot or 482 before the on yes if it is an application filed before a learned magistrate that is in a trial which is being conducted by a magistrate then a revision can be filed to the session spot or if it is a case pending before the session spot then you can file a revision to the high court 397 rate with 401 or you can file a 482 application petition under 482 because a revision petition would be maintainable because this would not be an interlocutory order yes sir just a final order order of rejection to summon a particular person would be a final order because it determines right of a person and that is one of the test hence a revision or a 482 application can be filed both are yes see Harry has a question sir in the new judgment has the court deviated or held contrary to Hardeep Singh's case on any part no nothing see that's the reason I dealt with and broadly touched upon Hardeep Singh Hardeep Singh the points for consideration were totally different it had the emphasis was on the word evidence at what is at what stage can a 319 order be passed in fact that was one end of the spectrum so there it was held that even after immediately after taking cognizance you can invoke section 319 and you don't have to wait till the formal evidence is recorded so that is the first stage that is immediately after cognizance you will summon the accused so while examining the papers that is the stage of inquiry if it is upon a police report while you are examining the papers for the purpose of taking cognizance under section 190 if the court finds that certain other accused have been left out from the charge sheet then 319 can be invoked is what has been held in Hardeep Singh saying that you don't have to wait till the formal evidence and evidence includes the materials connected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and submitted along with the final report under section 173 2 so that is one end of the spectrum in Hardeep Singh so it had also held that trial commences once the charge is framed here is other end of the spectrum till what stage can you invoke 319 so it has been held that you can invoke 319 up to the before the sentence is pronounced or the order of acquittal is pronounced so these are two so there is nothing no conflicting views in both of them both will throw light on individual aspects they are not overlapping the points for considerations are not overlapping hence it would be ideal that the viewers refer to both the judgments and minutely examine because there is no scope for any ambiguity or confusion right absolutely I think that's all from my end one question is whether session in the high court has a concurrent jurisdiction with reference to filing of the terminal revision and yes 319 yes see not only 319 it has concurrent jurisdiction the very reading of the provision 397 401 and it has been held by the Supreme Court also that you can either approach the sessions court by way of revision or high court only thing is if you approach the high court directly you would be losing one forum because against an order passed in a revision though second revision is not maintainable under 397 3 you can file a 482 so revision is concurrent revisional jurisdiction of a session spot and high court is concurrent just like 438 and 439 the last question can a person placed in the column 12 in the chart sheet can a person placed in a column number 12 in chart sheet file a defamation case civil slash criminal against a criminal before the conclusion of the trial and is same and does it have any impact on the application file into section 319 if filed during the trial I think the question is too convoluted so it is better and it is it is besides the point I don't think there is no answer on presumption yes and it is very convoluted one can't understand so it is better we leave it yeah so thank you to victim for connecting us with Mr. Multinike and as usual his session was quite eloquent and people will have a lot of takeaways for the session and tomorrow friends you will connect at 6 p.m on a bird eye view of the Indian partnership act with special focuses on exams on judicial papers as well ADA and come secretary etc so do connect us at 6 p.m thank you thank you