OMA DUTT SHARMA @ HAPPY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide which he had dismissed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of PW3 ASI Baldev Singh so moved by accused Om Dutt Sharma, who is revisionist before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Om Dutt Sharma was booked by the police in FIR no.36 dated 26.3.2012 for the offences under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act and 27 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, registered with Police Station Kurali and he had been facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. During the course of said trial, statement of ASI Baldev Singh was recorded as PW3. The evidence of prosecution was closed. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused examined eight witnesses in defence. Thereafter, he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW3 ASI Baldev Singh with regard to talk, which allegedly took place between accused Om Dutt Sharma, his brother Shambhu Dutt and ASI Baldev Singh on 24.9.2013 and 11.11.2013. That application was dismissed by the trial Court observing that it is not the plea of the accused that said talk is supportive of his defence plea or how and in what manner the same will serve his purpose and that recalling of PW3 ASI Baldev Singh shall not serve any purpose of applicant - accused as he will have to establish voice identity of the said witness by leading some other independent evidence and further applicant - accused had not placed on record the alleged recording to support that version. It was further observed that the application seemed to have been filed to delay the proceedings or with some other vested motive best known to the applicant-accused and recalling of PW did not appear to be essential for just decision of the case.

(3.) After going through the said order and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. The petition has been filed belatedly. There is delay of 315 days in filing of the petition. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for the reason that petitioner had instituted a petition i.e. CRR-1439 of 2017 against the impugned order, which was withdrawn as the date of cross-examination of ASI Baldev Singh in the order was shown as 11.11.2013, whereas in fact date of cross-examination was 11.11.2014 and this Court allowed the petitioner to file fresh petition after correction of various dates of cross-examination of ASI Baldev Singh vide order dated 24.4.2017. This does not seem to be a very plausible and convincing ground for condonation of delay since the petitioner could have drawn the attention of the Court regarding the actual date though wrongly recorded in the order and I do not find sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Nevertheless on merits also, the petition is doomed for failure.