The HC quashed and set aside the sessions court order but stated that, "if the prosecution is able to lead any prima facie evidence that suggests the involvement of the applicant, in that event it is kept open for the learned Sessions Judge to exercise the discretion, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the present order."Holding that “mere suspicion of involvement” was “not sufficient” to proceed against a person who was not an accused in a case, the Gujarat High Court quashed a sessions court’s 2006 order directing that a then-serving police officer be named as an accused in a case that was mid-trial under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat High Court held that the sessions court had “improperly exercised” the power to summon a person, as the evidence fell short.The HC was hearing a revision application filed by retired IPS officer RJ Savani, challenging the July 2006 order of the sessions court in Nadiad, Kheda, which had ordered that Savani be joined as an accused, and witnesses be recalled, in a case in which the investigating officer had earlier cleared Savani.In its judgment dated May 6, the HC observed that the sessions court had acted on the testimony of the complainant, in which he had “clearly stated” that he “was not present” at the site of the incident and “based on the information received from the people he has lodged the complaint” and also made allegations that Savani “in the capacity of deputy superintendent of police was unanswerable”.The HC judgment stated, “Mere suspicion of involvement of the proposed accused–applicant is not sufficient and to proceed against the proposed accused…there must be some material or evidence, which suggests more than prima facie evidence regarding the involvement of the applicant…”Citing SC precedents, the HC said, “…it clearly reveals the power of summoning under Section 319 of the Code is not to be exercised routinely” and the “existence of more than a prima facie case” is mandatory to summon an additional accused. The court stated that trial courts must “evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned” and then adjudge whether the evidence is as weighted and valued as against those who are already facing trial. “In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 of the Code ought not to be invoked,” the judgment stated.The case arises from an incident that occurred on May 28, 1993, in Nadiad. Retired head constable RM Vaghela, describing himself as a social worker and the father of victim constable Bipin Vaghela, lodged an FIR alleging that while police constables were recording statements near Ramji Bhuvan for a case, Savani, who was then a deputy superintendent of police, arrived with a mob of approximately 100 persons, abused the officers, instigated the mob, which assaulted Bipin, robbed him of his watch, chain and Rs. 700. The applicant also allegedly threatened the head constable with dismissal from service if a complaint was lodged.Story continues below this adThe FIR was lodged under the Indian Penal Code Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (armed rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly liability), 332 (hurt to public servant), 395 (Dacoity), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 34 (Common intention), 506(2) (Criminal intimidation) As well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.Savani’s counsel submitted that the investigating officer, however, cleared Savani and filed a closure report under Section 169 of the Code before the Matar chief judicial magistrate, stating that “no offence is made out against” him. No charge sheet was filed against Savani. The IO further reported that the victim was not a member of the scheduled caste community and was a Christian by birth, making the Atrocities Act inapplicable. The remaining ten accused were charge-sheeted and tried in a fast-track court.When the prosecution examined the complainant, Vaghela, and his son Bipin, the APP filed an application seeking to join Savani as an additional accused. The sessions court allowed the application in July 2006, directing that he be impleaded, and the previously examined witnesses be recalled. Savani’s counsel submitted that the application had been filed prematurely “without even completing the recording of evidence of (the second witness, who was the victim), and even the first witness was not cross-examined”.The HC quashed and set aside the sessions court order but stated that, “if the prosecution is able to lead any prima facie evidence that suggests the involvement of the applicant, in that event it is kept open for the learned Sessions Judge to exercise the discretion, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the present order.”Story continues below this adThe sessions court was also directed to proceed with the matter against the other accused in the case. Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues. Expertise: Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including: Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground. Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure. Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case). Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions. Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Gujarat High Court