SAWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent powers of this Court to prevent a step of the trial Magistrate which is termed as abuse of the process of Court and manifestly unjust.

(2.) BROAD facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner Sawaran Singh and three others are facing trial in a criminal Court under Sections 323/324/341/34, Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced way back in 1983 when charge was framed against them on 10.8.1983. The prosecution on 2.4.1984 examined Dr. N.P. Aggarwal P.W.1. He declared one of the injuries on the victim to be grievous on the basis of an X-ray report received by him. On 10.10.1984 Avtar Singh P.W.2, the injured person, was examined by the prosecution but he omitted to mention that his injuries were X-rayed. The prosecution evidence was closed on 29.5.1985. After recording the statements of the accused, they led defence evidence. On 5.8.1985, they examined Dr. Ashok Dhingra as a defence witness. It transpires that this doctor Ashok Dhingra was the one who had conducted the X-ray examination and prepared the X-ray report of the injured Avtar Singh P.W.2. Even then the prosecution did not put any question to him about the X-ray report. The defence evidence was closed and the matter was put for arguments. It is then that the prosecution awoke from its slumber to have the shade of the prosecution changed.

(3.) IT appears that the case later came on the file of Shri Tara Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. This time the prosecutor at the behest of the complainant moved an application for amendment of the charge to one under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. Strength in support thereof was drawn from the statement of Dr. N.P. Aggarwal P.W.1. The learned trial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.9.1986, allowed the petition despite objection of the petitioner bringing to focus the earlier referred to facts. The learned trial Magistrate took the view that the dismissal of the earlier applications of the complainant did not stand in the way in the amendment of the charge to one under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. He even found some defect in the language regarding constructive liability under Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, under his direction, the charge was amended to include the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, against Manohar Singh accused and under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code, against the remaining accused (inclusive of the petitioner) in addition to the offences under Sections 324/323/341 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. He put the charge to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the same and thereupon on the statement of the learned A.P.P., he ordered summoning of Dr. N.P. Aggarwal, with regard to the request to summon Dr. Ashok Dhingra, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the accused to consider the question of summoning Dr. Dhingra being alive to the fact that he had not been cited as a prosecution witness in the challan and secondly an earlier attempt to summon him as a witness at the behest of the complainant had been dismissed. It is against this order that the accused has come to this Court by means of this petition.