GIAN PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.3.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa vide which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial in a case registered under Section 25 read with Section 15 N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) THE case in brief is that four bags containing poppy straw were recovered from truck bearing registration No. RJ-31G-0778 while Sher Singh and Sukhpal Singh were riding in the truck. Registration of the truck was in the name of Sukhwinder Singh son of Sher Singh. Both the accused were facing trial in N.D.P.S. case. Prosecution evidence was led in part. A perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PH shows that initially truck was in the ownership of Gian Parkash son of Suraj Mal, but there was entry on it about the change of ownership in the name of Sukhwinder Singh. The truck was got released on sapurdari by Sukhwinder Singh claiming himself as owner of truck. An application was moved by Jatinder Kumar son of Des Raj resident of Mansa for cancellation of sapurdari of truck. When alleged poppy straw was recovered from the truck, it was in the name of Gian Parkash and Sukhwinder Singh, therefore, trial Court summoned them as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to fact trial alongwith other accused.

(3.) MR . D.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 11.3.2002 passed by Judge, Special Court, Mansa is palpably erroneous. He contended that the alleged truck has already been sold by the petitioner to Sukhminder Singh and an affidavit to that effect has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 and affidavit of Sukhminder Singh dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure P-4) has also been placed on record to show that the truck has been purchased by him. He pointed out that there is no evidence with the prosecution that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence. He contended that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. power can be exercised only in case when evidence indicated reasonable prospect of conviction of accused in the crime. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Machael Machando and another v. C.B.I. and another, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 609.