IRSHAD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 17.1.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MA No. 97/18 in Sessions Trial No. 8/17, whereby application having been filed by the respondent- State under Section 311 CrPC for re-summoning and re- examination of PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-2 Hoshiar Singh came to be allowed, petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') has approached this Court by way of instant petition praying therein for quashing of impugned order referred to herein above. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?.

(2.) For having a bird's eye view of the matter, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that an application bearing Cr.MA No. 97/18 came to be filed under Section 311 CrPC on behalf of the State seeking therein permission of the court to re-summon and re- examine PW-1 and PW-2, names whereof have been referred herein above. Averments contained in the application i.e. annexure P-1 reveal that at the time of investigation, Investigating Officer had initiated process for pre-trial disposal of case property in terms of provisions contained under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), but before said process could be completed, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused within stipulated period. Since process initiated for pre-trial disposal of case property was pending, necessary disposal certificate could not be issued by competent authority and case property was also not destroyed.

(3.) On 27.5.2017, PW-1 Sanjay Kumar and PW-2 Hoshiar Singh were examined but on account of pending process of pre-trial disposal and also on account of bona fide belief that proceedings under Section 52A of the Act had been completed and further on account of non-availability of case property on that day, same could not be put to witnesses named above for identification. Factum with regard to aforesaid omission on the part of the prosecution came to the fore at the time of recording of examination of PW-6, whereafter, application for re-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 for limited purpose of identification of case property came to be instituted on behalf of the State.