The main legal point established is the importance of summoning essential witnesses for a just decision, as emphasized in Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. and supported by interpretations by the Apex Court.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant-Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the NCB) against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla dated 27-10-2005 insofar as he has rejected the prayer of the NCB for recalling two witnesses Balbir Singh and Surender Singh.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the NCB filed a complaint in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla under Sections 8, 18, 20, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) against the accused Yuvraj Gurang and Gurusharan Sharma alias Gulshan. The allegations, in brief, are that on prior information received the NCB carried out a raid in the premises occupied by Yuvraj Gurang in the basement of Hari Bhawan at Shoghi on National High Way No. 22. This building is stated to be owned by the second accused Gurusharan Sharma who is running Sharma Dhabha therein. During the course of the search and seizure operation the search party is alleged to have recovered from the possession of the accused Yuv Raj Gurung charas weighing 4.800 k.gs. and 500 gms of opium in two separate packets. These packets were stated to have been kept by Yuvraj Gurang under a double bed in his room.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter Yuv Raj Gurang made a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In this statement he stated that he had been given 5 k.g. charas and 1 k.g. of opium by Gurushran Sharma the second accused. According to this statement, this contraband had been given to Yuv Raj by Gurushran for further sale. As per this statement the accused Gurushran Sharma who was the owner of the Sharma Dhabha used to supply opium and charas to him for selling the same to the customers/drivers visiting the dhabha. The investigation also revealed that Yuvraj was working in Sharma Dhabha owned by Gurusharan Sharma for many years. The accused Gurusharan Sharma was asked to join investigation. Initially he did not do so but later on he joined the investigation at Chandigarh on 24-2-2005. According to the prosecution, Gurusharan Sharma also made a confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which has been proved at Ext. P.W. 1/V/3. This confessional statement is dated 24-2-2005. The said statement is signed by two witnesses Surender Singh and Balbir Singh.

4. In the list of witnesses filed with the complaint the names of Surender Singh and Balbir Singh who were witnesses to the statement under Section 67 allegedly made by Gurusharan Sharma did not find mention though the said statement was filed with the complaint. Similarly, in the list of witnesses the name of one Sh. P. K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB Chandigarh did not find mention. The complainant moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that it may be permitted to summon P. K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB Chandigarh, Balbir Singh and Surender Singh. The ground taken in the application was that the names of the said witnesses have inadvertently not been mentioned in the list of witnesses. It was further averred that the statement of accused Gurusharan Sharma under section 67 of the NDPS Act had been witnessed by Surender Singh and Balbir Singh and as such they were also necessary witnesses whose names had not been cited in the list of witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order dated 27-10-2005 allowed the application in so far as it related to P. K. Sharma but disallowed the application for summoning Balbir Singh and Surender Singh on the ground that their parentage and address had not been disclosed. This order is under challenge before me.

5. I have heard Sh. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner-NCB and Sh. M. L. Brakta, learned counsel for the accused.

6. From the facts narrated above it is apparent that two persons Balbir Singh and Surender Singh had witnessed the alleged sta