128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2025 GURPREET SINGH @ GOPI @ GURPARTAP SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside the order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned ASJ/JSC, Tarn Taran, vide which, the application for extension of time to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) has been dismissed and further prayer is for quashing/setting aside the order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned ASJ/JSC, Tarn Taran whereby application for grant of another opportunity to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner has been dismissed in case bearing FIR No.29 dated 23.02.2015 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after presentation of the challan, charges were framed on 07.12.2015 and PW-1, namely, SI Prabhjit Singh and PW-2 ASI Balwinder Singh appeared before the trial Court. Their examination-in-chief was recorded and it was the first date, after framing of the charges, when the prosecution witnesses had appeared and on the first date of hearing, the opportunity to cross-examine the aforementioned witnesses was declared as nil, as discernible from order dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- and both the witnesses were summoned for 06.01.2018. However, on the said date, both the witnesses did not appear. The same is evident from order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure P-5) and on the next date of hearing i.e. on 16.02.2018, their bailable warrants issued due to non-appearance. Thereafter, the petitioner got absented from the hearing before the learned trial Court on 16.03.2018 and he was declared as a proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.06.2018. The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2020 and was released on bail on 21.10.2022. Then after two years, the case was fixed for defence evidence and the petitioner realized that the cost imposed vide order dated 06.12.2017 was not deposited, due to the absence of the petitioner and his subsequent declaration as proclaimed offender and thereafter on account of Covid-19, the order for depositing of the cost of Rs.10,000/- was not complied with. As such, the petitioner approached the trial Court, however, the said application was dismissed by impugned order dated 21.10.2024 on the ground that there is no provision under the Cr.P.C. to review the order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-7).

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and per contra, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has delayed the trial as he absented himself from the trial Court and has not deposited the costs, in spite of grant of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. As such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and the trial Court is fully justified in passing the impugned order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, this Court finds force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner has the right of fair trial as enshrined under Article 226 of Constitution of India and any denial of the best available evidence or opportunity of effective and substantial hearing to accused/petitioner in proving his defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.

6. A two judge Bench of the H