SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two revision petitions, the three petitioners; namely Sukhpal Singh Khaira, Joga Singh and Manish Kumar, have put to challenge the order dated 31.10.2017 in CRM No. 339 of 28.09.2017 in Sessions Case No. 289 of 16.09.2015, decided on 31.10.2017.

(2.) F.I.R. No. 35 dated 05.03.2015 under Sections 21/24/25/27/28/29/30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sec. 25A of the Arms Act and section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad against eleven accused persons. On 09.03.2015, a Special Investigation Team was constituted, consisting of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur, Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka and Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, which investigated the FIR and filed a challan on 06.09.2015 against nine persons, since remaining two persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders and finally one of them was never apprehended. Thus, the trial was held against 10 persons. Thereafter, on 18.11.2016, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the two Proclaimed Offenders. Petitioner-Sukhpal Singh Khaira had filed CWP-8999-2015 in this Court, praying for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the said FIR. Upon issuance of notice, the said petition was heard on some dates and on 14.07.2016, Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab made a statement that petitioner-Sukhpal Singh Khaira was not named as an accused in the said FIR and, as such, there was no cause of action for maintaining the petition. As a sequel, petitioner-Sukhpal Singh Khaira withdrew the said petition on 16.03.2017. During this period, PW-4 Ajmer Singh (Superintendent of Police) and PW-5 Jaswant Singh (Inspector) were examined in the trial against 10 accused persons. The evidence of PW-4 Ajmer Singh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh was completed on 06.07.2017 and the prosecution closed its evidence. On 06.07.2017 itself, a request for recall made by the prosecution was declined by the trial Court. On 31.07.2017, an application was filed by the prosecution under section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recalling the witnesses and also to produce some record for being proved. On 17.08.2017, the said application was allowed. After the said application was allowed, PW-4 Ajmer Singh, PW-5 Jaswant Singh and PW-13 Ravinder Pal Singh (Constable) were examined between 14.09.2017 to 21.09.2017. On 21.09.2017, the prosecution again closed the evidence. On 21.09.2017 itself, the prosecution filed an application under section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning additional five accused, including the present petitioners, for the reasons stated in the said application. The statements of the 10 accused under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded on 04.10.2017. In the meanwhile, in a petition (CRM-M-18474-2017, decided on 08.08.2017) for grant of bail by Kala Singh, one of the accused in custody, this Court had directed the trial Court to complete the trial within 3 months from 08.08.2017. The trial Court, looking to the said direction and the fact that the FIR case was of 2015, made an order on 28.09.2017, directing registration of the application under section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on 21.09.2017. Thereafter, on 10.10.2017/ 16.10.2017, defence witnesses were examined by the accused persons. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, made its judgment on 31.10.2017 in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015 and convicted all the ten accused and sentenced them. While recording the judgment of conviction, in paragraphs 5 (end of para) the trial Court observed that the application under section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be dealt with separately. Accordingly, on the same date i.e. 31.10.2017, on which date the judgment was pronounced, simultaneously, the said application under section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was decided by the impugned order summoning five additional accused persons, including the present petitioners. Hence, these two revision petitions against the said order. Arguments :-

(3.) Sarvshri Mr. R.S. Rai and G.S. Punia, Senior Advocates, with Sarvshri Gautam Dutt, Abhinav Sood and P.S. Punia, Advocates, in both these petitions, made the following submissions:-