Degree of satisfaction for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC must exceed a prima facie case.

In 2001, the Government of Uttarakhand initiated the recruitment of 253 Sub-Inspectors.

I.I.T. Roorkee handled the examination, while a committee chaired by the revisionist (Rakesh Mittal, then A.D.G.) prepared final results.

Discrepancies in marks led to a C.B.I. investigation and subsequent charge-sheeting of the revisionist under Section 120-B r/w Sections 420, 467, 471, 468 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

During trial, the revisionist moved an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon Shree A.B. Lal (Respondent 2) and Shree Ganesh Chand Pant (Respondent 3) as additional accused, alleging they conspired to frame him to ensure A.B. Lal’s elevation to D.G.P.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 30.01.2025, which the revisionist challenged herein.

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which grants discretionary and extraordinary power to summon persons not yet accused if evidence reveals their involvement.

The Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, which established that the degree of satisfaction required for summoning under Section 319 is higher than for framing a charge; it requires "much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity" but short of a certainty of conviction.

Periyasami v. S. Nallasami (2019) 4 SCC 342 regarding the limits of this power.

The court found the revisionist’s allegations of "unauthorized presence" and "tampering" to be bald assertions without factual basis.

Scientific evidence from the F.S.L. Report indicated that the floppy data was first copied on 24.07.2002—after it was handed to the revisionist—and his laptop contained both original and altered marks.

Witness statements confirmed that Respondents 2 and 3 were authorized by superior officers to assist I.I.T. Roorkee regarding state reservation policies.

The court noted that the conspiracy motive (promotion to D.G.P.) was untenable as several officers senior to Respondent 2 existed; thus, the revisionist’s removal would not have automatically resulted in Respondent 2's promotion.

Applying the Hardeep Singh standard, the court determined that the evidence did not meet the requisite "strong satisfaction" threshold for impleading additional parties.

The court answered that the presence of respondents at I.I.T. Roorkee was part of their official duty and no iota of evidence suggested their complicity in the crime.

Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed.