JAGGI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An FIR viz. FIR No. 149 dated 2.9.2011 was registered against the petitioner and one more person, namely, Zimmy Singla, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). From the petitioner, a plastic can containing about 2.5 liters of intoxicant liquor was recovered and from the other person, namely, Zimmi Singla, 500 gms. of intoxicant powder was recovered. Thus, the petitioner is being tried for violation of Section 22 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) The final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented in Court on 17.7.2013, charges were framed on 12.8.2013 and the evidence commenced on 18.11.2013. During the course of trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution on the ground that SHO/SI Sher Singh had died and, therefore, ASI Piara Singh be permitted to be produced as a prosecution witness in his place. The said application was allowed allegedly on the concession given by the petitioner. Subsequently, another application dated 26.10.2017 was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. again on the ground of death of SHO/SI Sher Singh but this time MHC P.S. City-I Mansa was sought to be examined. He was required to prove an entry at Sr. No.1061 dated 3.9.2011 in register No. 19, docket No. 247 dated 8.9.2011 and DDA No. 30 dated 2.9.2011. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.1.2018 and hence, the present petition for quashing of the said order which has been placed on record as Annexure P-12.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforementioned MHC P.S. City-I Mansa could have been examined when the first application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved. Since the same was not done, a lacuna was left by the prosecution and the same cannot be permitted to be filled up by moving another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The submission is that provision for additional evidence has been provided to enable the Court to ensure that essential evidence is not left out as the same would assist the Court in arriving at a just decision. It is not meant for filling up lacunae in the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.