C-II Piara Singh v. State of Punjab

FIR No. 274, dated 05.07.05, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was registered, against Charanjit Singh. It was stated that Piara Singh, accused/revision-petitioner, was not challaned, though, the recovery of 18 kgs poppy husk, was alleged to Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 2 have been effected from him. It was further stated that the name of Piara Singh, was kept, in column No. 2, by the Police. It was further stated that when Navjot Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was examined, as PW3, he deposed that recovery of 18 kgs poppy husk, was effected, from the possession of Piara Singh. Bakhshish Singh, ASI (PW3), also made a similar statement.

3. Thereafter, an application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning Piara Singh, as additional accused, was moved, by the prosecution.

4. The Court below, vide order impugned, summoned the revision-petitioner, as additional accused, to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in summoning Piara Singh, as an additional accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act, on the basis of part statements of Navjot Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Bakhshish Singh, ASI, recorded during the trial of the case. He further submitted that without affording an opportunity, to the person, sought to be summoned, as an additional accused to cross- examine these witnesses, the order impugned, could not be passed. He Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 3 further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. He also placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009, Criminal Law Journal, 3978, in support of his contention.

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Rakesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 681 (SC) after some witnesses were examined-in-chief, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning the additional accused, was moved, which was accepted by the trial Court . A revision filed, in the High Court, was dismissed. The appellants, then approached the Apex Court. The question, before the Apex Court, which arose for decision was, as to whether, the part statements of the prosecution-witnesses, without cross-examination, constituted 'evidence' within the meaning of Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not. The Apex Court, replying the question, in the affirmative, noticing conflicting views of different High Courts, and holding that the term 'evidence' used in sub-section (1) of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is comprehensive, observed as under:- “Once the Sessions Court records a statement of the witness it would be part of the evidence. It is true that finally at the time of trial the accused is to be given Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 4 an opportunity to cross-examine the witness to test its truthfulness. But that stage would not arise while exercising Court's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Once the deposition is recorded, no doubt, there being no cross-examination, it would be a prima-facie material, which would enable the Sessions Court, to decide whether power under Section 319 should be exercised or not. Sub-section (1) of Section 319 itself provides that, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person, for the offence which he appears to have committed. The Court further added:- “Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the term 'evidence' as used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. would mean Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 5 evidence which is tested by cross- examination. The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination, would arise only after addition of the accused. There is no question of cross-examining the witness, prior to adding such person, as accused. Section does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person, and giving him, an opportunity of cross-examining the witness, who has deposed against him, and, thereafter, deciding whether such person is to be added as accused or not. Word “evidence” occurring in sub- section is used in comprehensive and broad sense, which would also include the material collected by the investigating officer, and the material or evidence which comes before the Court, and from which the Court can prima-facie conclude, that person not arraigned before it, is involved in the commission of the crime”. 8-A. The principle of law, laid down in Rakesh and Anr's case Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 6 (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was right in summoning Piara Singh, a Police official, as an additional accused, on the basis of the part statements of Bakhshish Singh, ASI (PW1) and Navjot Singh, DSP (PW3).

9. In Sarabjit Singh and another's case (supra), it was held, that the order under Section 319, could not be passed only because the first informant, or one of the witnesses, seeks to implicate the other person. It was further held that sufficient and cogent reasons, are required to be assigned by the Court for summoning an additional accused. In the instant case, the Court below, on correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence of Navjot Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW3, and, Bakhshish Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW1, as also the material collected and presented by the Investigating Agency, was right, in summoning Piara Singh, as an additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from Sarabjit Singh and another's case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The Court below, exercised the discretion, in a judicious manner. The discretion exercised, cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2010 7

10. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.

17.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE