Need to summon additional accused arise when a person who is not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the Charge sheet or a person who has been discharged, if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial then the need to summon additional accused arise. The evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. If a Court is holding a trial and if it intends to exercise its power which has been conferred by Section 319 CrPC, to summon additional accused, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order there under must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Fresh summoning of an accused will also result in delay of the trial. That’s why the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused has to be different and original. So that no one suffer by delay in trial – whether they are informant or accused.
However, insofar as an accused that has been discharged is concerned, the requirement of Section 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.