BHUPINDER SINGH PETITIONER Vs. HARDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bakshi submits that by this Court's order dated 30.01.1997, Annexure P-7, the Magistrate had been directed to re-trace the steps already taken before the impugned order had been passed. The impugned order in the Crl. Misc. No. 17502-M of 1996, was the order dated 04.09.1996. He, therefore, submits that it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to record the entire evidence all over again before the petitioner can be again summoned. He submits that the whole controversy in the case is as to whether Harvinder Singh is also known as Bhupinder Singh. It was because of this controversy that the learned Magistrate had been directed to re-trace the steps. The learned Magistrate instead of recording evidence of the witness already examined, has examined a totally different witness, namely, Jaswant Singh, an Inspector in the Food and Supply Department and has summoned the petitioner again. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is being harassed unnecessarily. He has been selected to join as a Cadet in the Navy and because of these proceedings he is unable to proceed for his training. He further submits that in view of the long pendency of the case, the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the case.

(2.) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order passed by this Court on 30.1.1997, shows that the direction was given to the learned Magistrate to re-trace the steps already taken before the impugned order has been passed. The learned Magistrate was directed to satisfy himself as to whether Harvinder Singh is also known as Bhupinder Singh and for this purpose he was categorically directed that he may record further evidence to that effect and enquire as to whether Harvinder Singh is also known as Bhupinder Singh and take into consideration the same before passing any order. This direction cannot be read to mean that the learned Magistrate has been directed to "re-record" the evidence already taken by the complainant. The learned Magistrate was directed to satisfy himself by taking further evidence as to the identity of the accused. A perusal of the order dated 5.8.1998 passed by J.M.I.C., Batala, shows that the learned Magistrate was aware of the directions given by this Court. He took care to examine a wholly independent witness belonging to the Department of Food and Supply to pin-point the identity of the petitioner. The evidence given by Jaswant Singh, indicates that Bhupinder Singh has been mentioned as son of Massa Singh. He had also stated that there is no other son of Massa Singh as per the record brought by this witness. In view of the above, it would not be possible to interfere with the proceedings which are pending before the trial Court.

(3.) At this stage, it deserves to be noticed that in the petition it is the case of the petitioner that he has been selected as a Cadet in the Navy. Learned Magistrate will satisfy himself to the effect that the petitioner has actually been selected as a Cadet in the Navy and whether he has to join the training or not. If it is found that the petitioner is to join the Navy as a Cadet, the learned Magistrate will exempt the petitioner from appearing in Court till specific orders are passed requiring his presence so that the training of the petitioner is not interfered with. Petition stands disposed of. Orders accordingly.