Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur @ Kalo vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045071
120 CRM-M-14969-2024 2024:PHHC:045071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14969-2024
Decided On: 02.04.2024
AMARJIT KAUR @ KALO
.....PETITIONER(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Gurjinder Singh Thind, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
setting aside the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by Learned
Special Judge , NDPS Act, Patiala vide application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in
FIR No.156 dated 12.08.2019 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, Police
Station Pasyana, District Patiala was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
learned Trial Court had erroneously dismissed his application under Section 311
Cr.P.C., wherein he had sought recalling of 03 witnesses i.e. PW2 SI Randhir
Singh, PW3 HC Amrinder Singh and PW4 ASI Balbir Singh for the purpose of
their further cross-examination. It has been further submitted that after these 03
witnesses had been cross-examined, it came to the fore that the contraband
allegedly shown to have been recovered from the petitioner was in fact recovered
from one Manjit Kaur, qua which previously FIR No.155 dated 12.08.2019
had also been registered. It has been still further submitted that during
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045071
CRM-M-14969-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:045071
cross-examination of PW4 ASI Balbir Singh in the said case, he categorically
admitted that on the day of the arrest of the petitioner no other recovery of any
contraband was affected from the village of the petitioner nor was any other
person arrested. It has still further been submitted that the house of the accused is
in close vicinity to the petitioner's house and thus it left no manner of doubt that
a false recovery in that case had been planted upon her. Learned counsel has thus
asserted that in the circumstances cross-examination of the above-mentioned
witnesses would be necessitated for establishing the defence of the petitioner as
all along it has been his consistent case of false implication.
Learned counsel has furthermore contended that while passing the
impugned order, the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that as per the
settled law, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., could be invoked at any stage
of the trial, if the evidence or the witness(s) sought to be summoned, was
essential for ensuring justice to the parties. Learned counsel has asserted that
since the trial has not concluded as judgment is yet to be pronounced, there is no
question of the trial being delayed or the precious time of the Court being wasted
by the filing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner. A
prayer has therefore been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for
allowing the instant petition so that it could help in the just adjudication of the
case in hand.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
4. No doubt, Section 311 Cr.P.C., empowers the Court to summon or
examine any person as a witness at any stage of trial or enquiry or other
proceedings under the Code, however, the said power must be exercised by the
Court after due application of judicial mind.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045071
CRM-M-14969-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:045071
5. Adverting to the case in hand, a perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the petitioner was given adequate opportunities to prepare for the
cross-examination of the witnesses sought to be recalled; it is a matter of record
that the witnesses were examined-in-chief and subsequently cross-examined on
different dates extending over a period of time. Apparently, PW2 SI Randhir
Singh was examined-in-chief on 16.11.2022 and thereafter, his cross-examination
was done after almost 03 months on 10.02.2023. Similarly, examination-in-chief
of PW3 HC Amrinder Singh was recorded on 16.11.2022 and he too was cross-
examined on 10.02.2023; PW4 ASI Balbir Singh was examined-in-chief on
27.09.2023 and thereafter, cross-examined on 25.10.2023. It is thus abundantly
clear that there was sufficient time for learned counsel of the accused to go
through the statements of the witnesses and cross-examine them accordingly.
6. As a sequel to the above discussion, this Court does not find any
merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
7. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall
not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
02.04.2024 JUDGE
Aman Dua
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
