IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 03.07.2025 Karam Singh and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

CRM-24637-2025 I. This is an application filed u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking pre- ponement the date of hearing in the main case i.e. CRR-1556-2025 from

24.07.2025 to an early date.

II. In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the date of hearing in the main case is advanced from 24.07.2025 to today itself, i.e., 03.07.2025.

III. CRM stands disposed of.

CRR-1556-2025

1. In view of the orders of even date passed in CRM-24637-2025, main case is taken up for hearing today itself.

2. Petitioners – Karam Singh and Jaswant Singh, who are facing trial in case FIR No. 200, dated 21.07.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana, have challenged the order dated 04.06.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, whereby, application dated 21.05.2025, filed by the prosecution, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has been allowed.

3. An application under Section 311 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed with a prayer to summon the witness — Harpreet Kaur d/o Amarjeet Singh, to enable prosecution to submit the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) along with the judgment dated 08.01.2024, in order to prove its charges.

By filing reply to the said application, prayer of the prosecution was objected by the accused, because case is at the final stage and is fixed for arguments. It has been contended in the reply that defect is incurable, because it would amount the filling up of lacuna by presenting evidence at this stage.

4. For allowing the prayer, prosecution explained its position that for proving of the charges, one CD has been relied upon by it. However, same requires to be proved with the help of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of BNSS, 2023).

5. On the basis of the evidence, one Karam Singh, has already been convicted in FIR No.28, dated 21.03.2014, u/s 419 and 420 of IPC, by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, vide judgment dated 08.01.2024. Thus, copy of the said judgment and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, are required to be brought on record to prove the charges levelled by the prosecution.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused (petitioner herein) opposes the application by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Shiv Lal @ Sholly v. State of Punjab, 2018(2) Law Herald 1408 (SB) : Law Finder Doc Id #1067457. It is contended that the prayer made by the prosecution is highly belated and intended merely to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that even arguments in the case had already commenced by the time the application was moved, and allowing such application at this stage, may cause prejudice to the accused by enabling the prosecution to fill up lacunae in its case, potentially resulting in a de novo trial. Thus, dismissal of the application is sought.

7. Heard.

8. SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE IN THE REFERRED CASE IS AS UNDER:-

(i) Judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel pertains to a murder case in which one ‘Bhim Tank’ was deceased and injuries were suffered by ‘Gurjant Singh’. In that case, Ranjit Singh, brother of the injured, lodged the complaint/FIR without naming any accused, namely; Shiv Lal @ Sholly. Later, on the same day, a supplementary statement was recorded wherein Shiv Lal @ Sholly was implicated as a conspirator. Statements of injured Gurjant Singh (dated 17.12.2015) and Akash (dated 21.12.2015), along with Kaushalya Devi’s statement were recorded on the same day and also named Shiv Lal @ Sholly as one of the accused