The court emphasized the power of the court to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice, as well as the requirement to follow mandatory provisions in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.75 dated 18.09.2013, registered at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga, under Section 22 NDPS Act, 1985, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-2), declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.

3. The above noted FIR was registered with the allegations that when the police party was present at bus stand, village Dhudi Ke, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspects, two persons had been seen coming on motor-cycle bearing Registration No.PB-29F(T) 9122; that on seeing the police party, the driver of the motor-cycle fled from the spot, but the pillion-rider had been nabbed, who disclosed his identity as Sukhmander Singh (present petitioner), and had further disclosed the name of driver as Julfi Khan; that after preparing consent memo signed by the accused, the Investigating Officer had conducted the search of a polythene bag carried by the petitioner, following which recovery of 100 pouches of Microlit tablets each containing 100 tablets, had been effected; that one pouch of 100 tablets of Microlit was separated out as a sample and its parcel was prepared and the residue had been put in the same plastic bag; that both the parcels had been sealed by the Investigating Officer with the seal bearing impression 'GS'; that thereafter, all the necessary formalities had been completed; that on 26.09.2013, accused-Julfi Khan surrendered in the Court and was arrested in the above-noted FIR; that during inquiry, accused-Sukhmander Singh (petitioner) had been declared as innocent, and that after completion of necessary investigation, challan had been prepared and presented in the Court against coaccused, Julfi Khan only.

4. While poring the record, it is axiomatic that during the pendency of trial against the above-named co-accused, the prosecution had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., wherein the trial Court, vide order dated 25.09.2017, had summoned the petitioner as an additional accused to face the trial alongwith the above-named co-accused under Section 22 NDPS Act.

5. Charge was framed against the petitioner under the aforesaid section, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.

7. When the case was fixed for defence evidence, the petitioner had failed to appear before the trial Court and accordingly, he had been declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court, vide order dated 09.10.2018.

8. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, vide judgment dated 17.11.2018, the trial Court had acquitted the above-named co-accused of the charge framed against him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions. The first and the foremost submission of the learned counsel was that at one stage during an inquiry conducted by DSP(H) Moga, finding no evidence against the petitioner, the police had found him innocent. The aforesaid co-accused charged for the similar offence, had been acquitted by the trial Court and the evidence being the same, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs State of Punjab,2011 4 RCR(Cri) 453, and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar @ Billa Vs. State of Punjab,2019 3 RCR(Cri) 351.

10. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court, vide order dated 05.09.2018, had issued proclamation notice against the petitioner for 20.09.2018, which had been received back executed with the report dated 16.09.2018. Since the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed, therefore, presence of accused had been awaited for 01.10.2018. However, no fresh proclamation