GURARPAN CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (accused) has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure P-8), whereby the trial Court has proceeded to allow the application dated 30.11.2019 filed by prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C for re-examination of PW-22 (MHC Jagtar Singh) and also for examination of three additional witnesses. The impugned order was passed during trial in case FIR No.72 dated 14.07.2013 registered under Sections 364-A , 307 , 323 , 324 , 171 , 148 , 149 , 120-B , 506 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 , 54 and 59 of Arms Act, Sections 29 , 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 Act and Section 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana.

(2.) The FIR was lodged on the statement of Harminderpal Singh, owner of New Cone Switch Gear Private Ltd. wherein it was alleged that on 13.07.2013, at about 6.30 p.m., his son, namely, Manish Kumar alongwith his driver had gone from the factory in his BMW car bearing No.PB-10-DL- 6575. His son made a phone call to the complainant in which he heard cries and call was disconnected. Thereafter, two phone calls were received and complainant was informed that his son has been kidnapped by the assailants who were in police uniform and armed with pistols. The kidnappers demanded ransom money of Rs.5 crores. The complainant paid the demanded money to the assailants, thereafter, they fled away.

(3.) After commencement of trial in the above FIR, the prosecution examined its witnesses and during trial an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C for re-examination of PW-22, namely, MHC Jagtar Singh and also for examination of three additional witnesses, namely, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, concerned official of CFSL, MHC Jarnail Singh and Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. The said application was contested by the petitioner-accused by filing reply. Thereafter, learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.09.2019, proceeded to allow the application. Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused.