Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Sukhdev Raj Joshi - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
CRR-30-2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-01-2020
Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Sumeet Goel, Additional P.P. for the CBI
The discretionary powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be used judiciously and not to cause delay or prejudice in the trial process.
Headnote:
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Re-summoning of Witness - Sections 364, 120-B read with Section 218 IPC - 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 662, Sudevanand Vs. State through CBI - 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 368, Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to re-summon a witness for further cross-examination in a case involving allegations of illegal detention. The trial court dismissed the application, citing that the witness had already been fully examined and cross-examined, and that the application was an attempt to delay the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the application to re-summon the witness was without merit and was an attempt to delay the trial, in violation of a time-bound direction from the Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the witness should be re-summoned for further cross-examination, and whether the application was filed with an ulterior motive to delay the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that re-summoning a witness who had already been fully examined and cross-examined was not justified, especially in light of a time-bound direction from the Supreme Court to conclude the trial. The court also emphasized that discretionary powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should not be used to cause delay or prejudice.
Final Decision: The petition to re-summon the witness was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral) - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 3.1.2020 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning PW3 Kulwinder Kaur for the purpose of further cross-examination.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Surjit Kaur filed Criminal Writ Petition No.455 of 1994 for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for releasing her husband Sant Charan Singh, brother-in-law Kesar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Majha Singh, her brother Gurmej Singh and nephew Balwinder Singh from the custody of Tarn Taran police. In the said writ petition one representation dated 24.2.1994 was attached which was addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch, Punjab, in which it was stated that the whereabouts of the detenues are not known and they be got released. Later on, vide order dated 13.9.2019, an enquiry was entrusted to the Sessions Judge, Amritsar to look into the version of the petitioner and the respondents and submit a report. The Sessions Judge, Amritsar held in his report that the allegations of the complainant regarding taking away her male family members are not substantiated. Thereafter, vide order dated 2.5.1997, this Court entrusted the investigation to the CBI to enquire into the allegations of the petitioner. In pursuant thereto, the CBI registered the case/RC No.l(s)/97/SIU-XII/CHG dated 30.5.1997 under Sections 364, 120-B read with Section 218 IPC, at Police Station CBI/SIU-XV/ Chandigarh.
3. After completing the hearing, the CBI presented the charge sheets in the CBI Court. One of the report was regarding illegal detention of Gurmej Singh and Balwinder Singh in which certain documents regarding the statements of Gurmit Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur were also attached.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of PW2 Gurmit Kaur was recorded on 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019, whereas statement of PW3 Kulwinder Kaur was recorded on 5.7.2019. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the investigation conducted by the CBI was not fair and impartial and the petitioner is falsely implicated, therefore, during the trial PW1 Gurjit Kaur has neither named the petitioner as an accused nor attributed any role to him. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that now it has come to the notice of the petitioner thatPW3 Kulwinder Kaur has filed an application before the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran/SSP, Tarn Taran which was proved by producing the officials of the concerned offices as Ex.DW4/B. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the re-examination of PW3 Kulwinder Kaur is necessary to prove the contents of Ex.DW4/B as she is the author of the application and, therefore, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning PW11 for the purpose of re-examination by way of further cross-examination to prove the document Ex.DW4/B.
5. The application was contested by the CBI on the ground that as per the investigation it was found that Gurmej Singh and his son Balwinder Singh were abducted on 20.3.1993 by the petitioner-accused Sukhdev Raj Joshi and other police officials and the witnesses have seen both of them in the police custody in the CIA Staff, Tarn Taran as they and their family members were compelled to produce Baba Charan Singh before Shri Ajit Singh Sandhu, the then SSP, Tarn Taran and, thereafter their whereabouts are not known till date. It is also stated in the application that Gurmit Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur had seen a police party headed by ASI Sukhdev Raj Joshi-petitioner who was Reader to the SSP, Tarn Taran, when they raided their house on 20.3.1993 and took away Gurmej Singh and Balwinder Singh and this fact is corroborated by these two witnesses that after the arrest of Baba Charan Singh, Gurmit Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur had met Shri Ajit Singh Sabdhu, SSP, Tarn Taran for releasing her husband, b
