RESHMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar on 31.10.2006 whereby application of the petitioner for re-summoning Sub Inspector Bhupinder Singh, for the purposes of cross- examination, was dismissed.

(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 16.10.2006, when SI Bhupinder Singh was examined as PW-9, the counsel representing the accused was not present in the Court as he was busy attending his ailing mother. In the absence of the defence counsel, his junior informed the trial Court about his inability to be present in the Court to cross-examine the police official but instead of adjourning the case, the trial Court directed the junior counsel to go and call the senior counsel. However, as the defence counsel was not available in the Court complex but was at his place of residence, he could not be contacted and thus, could not come present. Instead of waiting for the defence counsel or adjourning the matter for some other date, the trial Court closed the evidence of SI Bhupinder Singh as "nil" in spite of opportunity having been given. It is submitted that the defence has to cross-examine SI Bhupinder Singh, as the entire case revolves around his testimony. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the defence be given one effective opportunity to cross-examine SI Bhupinder Singh.

(3.) IN a case involving trial of an accused under Section 15 of NDPS Act, the statement of the Investigating Officer would be most relevant to the outcome of the trial. Said Investigating Officer was the one who had recovered the contraband from the accused. If he is not allowed to be cross-examined by the defence, the fate of the accused would be sealed. An attempt can only be made to shatter his testimony if the accused is given an opportunity to cross- examine him. Mr. K.S. Hundal, Advocate representing the petitioner could not be present in the Court when SI Bhupinder Singh was examined as PW-9. The reason of absence of Mr. Hundal from the Court was that his mother was disposed. A request was made on his behalf by his junior counsel but instead of adjourning the case, the trial Court directed the said junior to go and fetch the defence counsel. There was no sufficient time with the junior counsel to contract Mr. Hundal and apprise him about the fact that he was wanted in the Court for cross-examining SI Bhupinder Singh. Even if Mr. Hundal had been informed, he would not have been in a position to come to the Court and cross-examine SI Bhupinder Singh on that date because he was busy in attending his ailing mother.