Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037032
2024:PHHC:037032
CRM-M-43752-2023 -1-
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43752-2023
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Amritpal Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate and
Ms. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking setting aside of order dated 28.07.2023 (Anneuxre P-1) passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon, vide which the application dated
24.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
has been illegally dismissed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that it has been passed on
the premise that the trial of the case is at the fag end and the application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed only to fill the lacuna. It is further contended that
the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that for examination of PW-1 for
confronting him with the pen drive which contains the conversations between
the petitioner and the complainant/PW-1, after three months of the alleged
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037032
2024:PHHC:037032
occurrence in which he has spelled out the genesis of the occurrence and this
evidence would be essential for the just decision of the case and it satisfy the
parameters of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. once the test of essentiality is passed then
the Court is required to allow the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and
any denial of the opportunity to the accused would amount to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures free and fair trial and
moreover, the opinion of the trial Court is totally erroneous as the trial is not at
the fag end, it is still at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. The
petitioner being an accused has right to put a question to the complainant for
proving his innocence and it is a trite law that a person cannot be denied his
right to defend himself.
Per contra, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Subhash Chand, submits that out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 06 have already
been examined. The pen drive was never handed over to the Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation. Further, it can be proved at the stage
of defence evidence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
records, it transpires that the pen drive contains the purported conversation
between the complainant and the petitioner and this conversation is essential
and material for the just and proper decision of the present case. This piece of
evidence would be necessary for deciding the controversy effectively. Reliance
in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
in 'Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others' Cr. Appeal No.
1021 of 2022 and the judgment of this Court passed in 'Vinod Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana and others' CRR No.377 of 2020.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037032
2024:PHHC:037032
The principles of natural justice are an integral part of right to fair
trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any denial of the best
available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving
defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.
The power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C is dictated by exigency of
the situation based on the principle of fair play and goodwill. The evidence
being essential to make the ends of justice meet, which would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case, is the only guiding factor for exercise of
this power. It would be obligatory on the part of the Court to summon the
relevant witness in case his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of
the case. However, the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is circumscribed by
the principle that the evidence to be obtained must be essential for just decision
of the case. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India
and another' AIR 1991 SC 1346, 'V.N. Patil Vs. K. Niranjan Kumar' in
2021(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 310 and this Court in 'Sukhdev Singh vs. State of
Punjab' 1982 Cr. LJ 2201.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.07.2023
(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to
provide one effective opportunity to the defence to put the contents of the pen
drive to PW-1.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
14.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037032
3 of 3
