Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Gurinder Singh & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRR NO. 1797 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Puri, Advocate and Ms. Amisha Batra, Advocate; For the Petitioner (s).
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Denial of application to exhibit reports from Special Investigating Team (SIT) - Court affirms that the power under Section 311 is expansive and may be exercised at any stage - The dismissal was based on prior applications and the closure of defense evidence; however, new evidence since then warrants reconsideration. (Paras 2, 8-10)
(B) Importance of newly available evidence - The court emphasizes that newly accessible reports directly related to the case should be permitted for examination to serve justice and maintain public confidence in the judicial process. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge the Sessions Court ruling that denied their request to exhibit reports from the SIT essential for their defense in a narcotics case. The reports were unavailable at the time of earlier applications.
Findings of Court:
The court rules that the reports relevant to the case may now be included due to their recent availability, overriding prior dismissals.
Issues: The court addresses whether the previous decisions justified excluding new evidence provided by the SIT.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that allowing the reports is crucial for a fair trial; thus the prior ruling to deny their admission was unfounded due to the subsequent availability of pertinent evidence.
Result: Petitioners' application allowed; order dated 06.07.2023 set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the procedural background of the case. (Para 1) |
| 2. prior dismissals of applications for evidence. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding the availability of new evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. the court’s rationale and observations on trial delays. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's decision to allow introduction of new evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
Challenge in the present criminal revision petition is to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 06.07.2023 wherein the prayer for placing on record the certified copies of the reports of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) given in compliance of the directions of this Court in CWP-20359-2013 alongwith one bail order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed in CRM-M-19751-2020 filed by the dismissed Investigating Officer Inderjit Singh whereby his bail application was dismissed, has been declined while dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.60 dated 01.06.2012 under Sections 22 /29/25/61 of NDPS Act lodged at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.
2. The reasoning which weighed with the learned Sessions Court while dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was based on the ground that on an earlier occasion he had dismissed two applications on 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) whereby members of the SIT were sought to be examined and for summoning the witnesses from the office of the Chief Minister, Punjab alongwith the reports. The other additional factum which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge was that the defence evidence had been closed way-back on 03.08.2019 and the first application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been then dismissed which order was upheld by a Coordinate Bench on 14.10.2021 (Annexure P-9), wherein an opinion had been recorded that as many as 35 opportunities had been taken to lead defence evidence by taking about 3 years for this purpose and vexatious applications calling for unnecessary witnesses were being filed. It was also noticed that DW-Sukhwinder Kaur from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala had already proved the dismissal of Inspector Injderjit Singh and relevant questions qua the rank and dismissal of said Inspector had already been asked from her.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the reliance on the earlier orders was not justified as subsequent events had come into picture and the reports were not available when earlier orders were passed and the reports were only opened and got indexed vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in CWP-20359-2013. Therefore, it was argued that the prayer made earlier in the first application which was dismissed on 03.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) would not be a sustainable ground, since at that point of time the reports were not available for being exhibited. It is the categorical case of the counsel for the petitioners that he does not wish to press the prayer for getting the certified copy of the bail order on record, since admittedly it was passed on 07.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) and reasonable time has elapsed, but no effort was made to get it exhibited at an earlier point of time.
4. It is, thus, submitted that on an earlier occasion the prayer in the first application dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-10) was for summoning of the record and the witness from the office of the Chief Minister, Punjab alongwith the reports which had been forwarded to the Government of Punjab whereby Inspector Inderjit Singh was indicted on the ground of false implication. A similar prayer was made in the third application dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-11) that the member of the SIT be summoned to prove the observations against Inspector Inderjit Singh now dismissed.
5. It is pointed out that when the application was dismissed on 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) Shri Hitesh Puri, Advocate had stated that he had applied for certified copy of inquiry report and had requested that some time may be given to him and in p
