Baghel Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.11.2018 Baghel Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Ms. GK Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. AS Gill, DAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this revision, the petitioner has laid challenged to the order dated 19.08.2018, whereby the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, summoned him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as an additional accused, upon an application filed by the prosecution. Briefly, around 5.00 AM in the morning of 10.08.2013, the petitioner, while driving Alto car bearing registration No. PB-11-AM0225, was coming from Noida to Ludhiana, met with an accident near Aluna Petrol Pump, on the main GT Road, Rajpura. On account of accident, his car was not motorable. Therefore, leaving the car at the spot, the petitioner went to his maternal uncle's house at village Ambe Majra, Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh District Fatehgarh Sahib. Around 9.30 AM, ASI Bhinder Singh, along with his team was going
-2from village Parrao side towards main GT road via Chowki Basantpura. On the way, he received a secret information about the parking of aforesaid accidental car of the petitioner with front glass and bonnet broken. Consequently, ASI Bhinder Singh, reached the spot. He searched the aforesaid car and found one red coloured bag and two boxes containing 333 bottles of Rexcof Syrup of Cipla Company (cough syrup) lying therein. After taking sample of the same, he took the possession of the aforesaid bottles.
During investigation, complicity of the petitioner was not found, therefore, he was introduced as prosecution witness, who, while appearing as PW-11, supported the prosecution story specifically testifying that he had bought 335 bottles of aforesaid cough syrup, on the asking of co-accused-Sahil, a registered Chemist, after depositing the cost of said bottles in his bank account by him.
On conclusion of his statement, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to summon the petitioner as an additional accused which was allowed vide order impugned herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that had the alleged contraband been carried by the petitioner for selling purposes, in that eventuality, after the accident, he must not have left the car un-attended or in isolation, with the alleged contraband lying therein, rather, he must have withered it away, before leaving his accidental car. The petitioner as PW-11, fully supported the prosecution story that the alleged contraband belonged to co-accused Sahil, on whose behest, he had bought and carried the same after purchasing it, from Gaziabad The
-3petitioner, during investigation, was found innocent, therefore, he was cited a prosecution witness.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleaded the legality and validity of the impugned order.
After giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions, this Court finds the instant revision, merits acceptance, for the reasons to follow:
The petitioner as PW-11 categorically testified that his friend Sahil, a registered Chemist, had requested him to purchase the alleged contraband (cough syrup) from Sikhar Pharma, Gaziabad and to bring it to Ludhiana, as at that moment, the petitioner was living at Noida. The petitioner also specifially deposed that he had purchased the said cough syrup, after transferring of money by aforesaid Sahil in his bank account, to enable him to purchase the same. This version of the petitioner was found true and correct during investigation by the Investigating Officer and on further investigation by Superintendent of Police, Rajpura. Therefore, declaring the petitioner as innocent, he was introduced as a prosecution witness. The petitioner as PW-11, fully supported the prosecution case.
Therefore, he cannot be declared as an accused for his admission that he had carried the alleged contraband (cough syrup) on asking of his co-accused Sahil. Innocence of the petitioner is also proved from the fact that after the accident around 5.00 AM in the morning, he left for his maternal uncle's home, leaving his accidental car un-attended.
-4knowledge that the alleged cough syrup purchased and carried by him falls under the category of 'narcotic substance', in that eventuality, he must have thrown it away out of his car to save himself from his implication under the NDPS Act. In other words, leaving of car by the petitioner with alleged contraband un-attended, in itself is sufficient to prove innocence of the petitioner.
Thus, in view of discussion made above, the instant revision is allowed. Impugned order of the trial Court dated 19.08.2018, summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as an additional accused is set aside.
Disposed of.
November 27, 2018 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No