LAKHBIR SINGH LAKHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was on the mutual urgency shown by the two sides and the fact that the trial before the learned lower Court was a time bound case as per the earlier directions of this Court and, thus, the matter is being taken up for expeditious disposal.

(2.) IN this revision, the petitioner who happens to be the accused in custody in this case has sought to impugn order dated 9.4.2015 Annexure P/1, whereby, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondent -State stood allowed leading to summoning of additional evidence by way of witnesses, who were already there on the list of witnesses. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. Before adverting onto the legal merits, it is essential to recapitulate the factual background of this petition. As has been canvassed, during the trial of this case, one petitioner Harbhajan Singh invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of direction to the trial Court to expedite and dispose off the trial and it is consequent upon thereto, orders dated 25.7.2014 Annexure P/4 were passed by this Court which are as follows: -

(3.) IT is thereafter, orders dated 20.2.2015 Annexure P/5 were passed by this Court directing the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months from the passing of this order. In this background, the learned trial Court passed order dated 26.3.2015 that as per the stand of the State and, thus, PWs at serial No. 3,9, and 16 remains to be examined and taking into consideration being a time bound case has passed a detailed order which does not necessitates its reproduction, whereby, the learned trial Court has shown its desperation and anguish how the process of the Court was sought to be subverted and the Court was forced to intimate the fact through a letter to the learned District and Sessions Judge seeking his intervention. It needs to be reiterated here that it was during the trial the statement of ASI Jaswant Singh, the Investigating Officer a material witness was partly recorded and, thereafter, he failed to put in appearance which has led to this innocuous situation. As even the report of ASI, Inderjeet Singh placed on record shows that this police official who has since retired had gone to England and it is thus elicited subsequently in the order dated 1.4.2015 of the trial Court that one of the witness Bhupinder Pal, Patwari had died and that this material witness Investigating Officer on his return from abroad had undergone eye operation and who was ordered to be summoned by way of issuance of bailable warrants. Prior thereto during the trial, an application dated 12.12.2014 was earlier moved by way of Annexure P/6 wherein, it was asserted by the State that since the Investigating Officer has left abroad and therefore, Patwari along with the relevant records and HC Baljinder Singh and ASI Balwinder Singh be summoned and it was before the decision on this application, another application Annexure P/7 was moved on 21.2.2015, wherein, it was mentioned regarding arrival in India of Investigating Officer ASI, Jaswant Singh.