HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by way of this petition by Hakam Singh, the petitioner is to the orders dated 21.9.2011 (Annexure P3) and 2.6.2012 (Annexure P4) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Muktsar Sahib respectively. By way of the impugned order dated 21.9.2011, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had summoned the petitioner to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 read with section 120-B IPC under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 269 dated 7.11.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar, District Shri Muktsar Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 .. read with section 120-B IPC. On revision, by way of the order dated 2.6.2012, learned Additional District Judge, Shri Muktsar Sahib upheld the order, Annexure P3.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been summoned as an accused at a very late stage in the trial. According to him, the petitioner had himself lodged this FIR against the partners of M/s H.R.Rice Trader, Muktsar (for short, "the Trader") for having misappropriated the paddy entrusted to him for purpose of milling. He has submitted that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner having come at the trial. According to him, none deposed against the petitioner. He has further submitted that if the petitioner is taken as an accused and his name is removed from the list of witnesses of the prosecution, the accused would go scot-free.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that sections 406 and 409 IPC would require entrustment of property as basic ingredient. According to him, the entrustment of the property is to the partners of the Trader and not to the petitioner. According to him, no offence under sections 406 and 409 IPC is, therefore, made out against the petitioner.