JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 8.12.1997, copy Annexure P-2, passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It will appear from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala relied upon the statement of Tarsem Lal ASI PW1, which was recorded partly on 8.12.1997 and on the basis thereof he ordered the summoning of Joginder Singh son of Amar Singh the petitioner to face trial in the case under section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the statement of Tarsem Lal ASI, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P1, will go to show that it was partly recorded inasmuch as cross-examination of the witness was deferred for want of Court time.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out that a perusal of Annexure P1 will go to show that cross-examination was deferred not at the instance of the cross-examiner but it was deferred as no time was left with the Court to complete the examination of the witness. This case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision in the case of Balwinder Singh (supra). The impugned order is, thus, not in accordance with law and is based upon the statement of PW1, which is incomplete and cannot be treated as admissible in evidence. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Petition allowed.