Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Surinderpal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 132 + 133 (I) CRM-M-26474-2023 Date of Decision : August 28, 2024 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION -PETITIONER V/S SURINDER PAL SINGH -RESPONDENT
!
" #
$ ! $
%
&' # (
Present:
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate with Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the C.B.I.
Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Harpreet S. Multani, Advocate for the respondent (in CRM-M-26474-2023).
!""#$%$&"'%'$( !""$$)#*"'%')+
!""$,$#&"'%'$+
!"",*$,-"'%''+ *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.
Since all these petitions encompass common question(s) of law, besides encompassing disputed question(s) of facts, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CRM-M-26474-2023. 2.
Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner assails the order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P1), wherethrough, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Punjab, S.A.S. Nagar, has partially allowed the application (Annexure P-4) moved by the respondent/accused. The said application encapsulated a prayer for supplying the respondent/accused the copy of statements, as recorded during preliminary enquiry(ies) conducted by the petitioner, in RC No.08(S)/1999/SIU-XVI/ Jammu, for effective cross-examination of the investigation officer. 3.
Before proceeding to delve into the controversy and make an adjudication upon the validity of the above raised claim(s), it is deemed apt
to initially capture a concise and compendious backdrop of the case at hand.
FACTUAL MATRIX 4.
In pursuance of the order dated 11.12.1996, as became drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon Criminal Writ Petition No.497 of 1995, titled as "Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab", a PE-2(s)/ 1995/SIU-XV/CHG was registered in Special Crime Branch, Chandigarh. The said case pertained to "Mass cremation of unidentified dead bodies by the Punjab Police During Militancy Period".
5.
During the course of inquiry in the PE (supra), another PE1(s)/1999 was registered on a complaint made by one Rajwant Kaur wife of late Sukhdev Singh. The allegations voiced in the said complaint were that, on 01.11.1992, her husband was abducted by a police party headed by Surinder Pal Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Sarhali, from the fields in her presence and later, he was killed in a police encounter on 02.11.1992 and was creamed as a "Lawaris". After conducting a preliminary enquiry, a case bearing RC No.08(S)/1999/SIU-XVI/JMU was registered on 07.07.1999, under Sections 364/302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against: (i) Surinder Pal, the then S.H.O.; (ii) Chanchal Singh, the then A.S.I.; (iii) Amrik Singh, the then S.I.; and (iv) Gulbarg Singh, the then A.S.I. 6.
After completion of investigation, the petitioner/C.B.I. filed a chargesheet on 27.11.2001, under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 201 and 218 of the IPC and substantive offences thereof, against (i) SI Surinder Pal Singh; (ii) SI Chanchal Singh; (iii) SI Amrik Singh; and (iv)
SI Avtar Singh; in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. at Patiala.
7.
During the course of trial launched in the case (supra), which was then at the stage of prosecution evidence and 14 prosecution witnesses were examined, the respondent/accused moved the application (Annexure P-4), whereon became passed the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P1) by the learned Special Judge concerned, thereby allowing the inquiry registered as PE-1(S)/99 to be brought on file. 8.
The drawing of the impugned order caused grievance to the petitioner/C.B.I. and propelled it to institute thereagainst the instant petition. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 9.
The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner stems from the fact that, since the preliminary enquiry concerned is an internal document of the C.B.I., which was never made a relied or nonrelied document in any case, much less the present case, therefore, it does not hold any significance in the present case and its production is totally irrelevant, however, the learned Special Judge erred in directing the production thereof. Nonetheless, a copy of the registration report of the preliminary enquiry concerned, as became cited in the list of relied upon documents, has already been provided with the charge sheet. 10.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the preliminary enquiry concerned was conducted by the C.B.I. in order to sat-
isfy itself as to whether any prima facie case is made out to investigate and on the basis thereof multiple cases including the present case, related to militancy period in Punjab, were registered by the C.B.I. Moreover, the said preliminary enquiry encompasses the statements of various victims. 11.
Another argument constructed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the hereinafter extracted inference adopted by the learned Special Judge concerned, thus for drawing the impugned order, is anchored upon ill-conceived and illogical factor(s), inasmuch as, the preliminary enquiry concerned was conducted by an officer, who is not the investigating officer of the present case, hence there arises no occasion for the defence to confront the present investigating officer with the statement(s) recorded by a different officer.
!
"
#
"
!
$ "
% 12.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner claims the application (Annexure P-4) to be vague, rather promoted by an ill endeavour to linger the matter and delay the conclusion of trial, which commenced circa 02 decades back.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT 13.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, in his defending the validity of the impugned order, makes huge dependence upon the verdict drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No.1 of 2017, Decided on: 20.04.2021, titled as "In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.", to submit that the prosecution agency is duty bound to furnish all the relied/non-relied upon documents, so that the accused can effectively defend himself/herself. ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT(S) GERMANE TO DISPOSAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION 14.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the Suo Moto Writ (supra), observed that, while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials (such as statements, or, objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. The relevant paragraph of this verdict is reproduced hereinafter:- &
"
# #
"
'
&
$
( )*+,)*-
.
$ ,
/
0
&
"
$
#
"
$ 1
2
%
15.
Moreover, in the Suo Moto Writ (supra), High Courts were also directed to incorporate the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, as became finalized in terms of the discussion made therein, as part of the rules governing criminal trials. Accordingly, the relevant incorporation was made in the "Procedure in Enquiries and Trails by Magistrates", relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:- .
3"
4
"
"
5"
1 "
.
7+80
( )8-
)98
7+8
"
4
"
"
( )*+ :
( 9
$ ' /
"
1 ;
( )*+ )*- <'
5 &
$ '
$ '
1 ; % 16.
Furthermore, by placing reliance upon the observations
recorded in Suo Moto Writ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its verdict rendered in "Manoj and ors. V/s State of Madhya Pradesh", Criminal Appeal Nos.248-250 of 2015, Decided on: 20.05.2022, directed that, in all criminal trials, the prosecution should furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied upon by the investigating officer and the presiding officers shall ensure compliance with such rules. The relevant paragraph of this verdict is reproduced hereinafter:- +7 1
$ '
&
% 17.
The import of the judicial pronouncements (supra) gets further expounded in the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "P. Ponnusamy V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu", 2023(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 307, relevant paragraphs whereof are reproduced hereunder:- 9 & # . ( +8
)*+
)*- =
"
#
( 7
7+8
$
>
( "
87
# .
#
0
&
"
+ >
!
? $
"$ ? ( .
0 1
!
? $ .
0
5 .0 1
.0 &
!
"
.
1
'"
'
@
1
&
. 0 >
#
( 87
7+8%
18.
The gist of the hereinabove alluded to judicial precedents can be extracted in the following manner:- (i) the prosecution is required to furnish only the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied upon by the investigating officer; (ii) the court is required to, after the charges become framed, give only one opportunity of disclosure and the accused may choose to avail this facility, but, only once;
(iii) in case documents are sought to be produced, the trial court should, after considering the relevancy of the said documents and not merely because it has remote bearing to the defence, direct production thereof. The trial court is at liberty to decline such production, in case it feels that it is a dilatory tactic;
REASONS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER 19.
This Court has examined the case at hand, on the touchstone of the hereinabove discussed expositions of law. For the reasons assigned hereinafter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order requires interference.
20.
To the considered mind of this Court, the learned Special Judge concerned has rightly declined to bring on record the inquiry reports submitted in preliminary enquiry registered as PE-2(S)/95-CHG, inasmuch as, it has been specifically directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the contents thereof be kept secret. However, insofar as the another direction pertaining to place on record the preliminary enquiry registered as PE1(S)/99 is concerned, the said direction is the outcome of a vague plea, as became canvassed in the application (Annexure P-4), becoming straightaway accepted by the learned Special Judge. 21.
At most, the learned Special Judge concerned could have passed directions for placing on record the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied upon by the investigating officer, although collected. In such eventuality, the respondent/accused
was endowed with a liberty to make an appropriate application under the provisions of Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S., thus seeking production of said documents, and, if any such application became preferred, the learned Special Judge concerned should have made a decision thereon in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Ponnusamy's case (supra), but, after evaluating the relevancy of such documents. 22.
Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) warrants interference and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Judge concerned for making decision afresh on the application (Annexure P-4). 23.
The instant petitions are disposed of accordingly. 24.
Pending application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly. ',
.
(KULDEEP TIWARI) August 28, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No