Manminder Singh @ Manminder Singh Sandhu v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-48925-2023 MANMINDER SINGH @ MANMINDER SINGH SANDHU STATE OF PUNJAB SUKHDEV SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M-48925-2023.

3.

Briefly stating, FIR, Annexure P-4, has been registered on a complaint by Shamsher Singh claiming that he retired as a Manager from a Central Co-operative Bank and is doing farming. He had never given any guarantee to any person nor entered into any contract with the accused, but Sukhdev Singh (petitioner in who is his neighbor has mentioned his name in form No.M-75 as surety by forging his signature and mentioning the details of his land. It has been further stated that the complainant came to know of this development from a letter dated 29.11.2016, received from Tehsildar. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and a charge-sheet was filed against Nishan Singh and Manminder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-48925-2023). Although, Sukhdev Singh was found to be innocent, but during the course of the trial, on an application moved by the prosecution, he alongwith some others were summoned as additional accused by order dated 27.02.2019. 4.

Counsel for the petitioners have urged that after the evidence of 09 out of 26 prosecution witnesses was recorded, the trial had sufficiently progressed, prosecution moved a second application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-8, ASI Gurnam Singh, to prove the statements of accused-petitioners and has also made a prayer under Section 91, Cr.P.C., for permission to bring on the judicial file, the original statements of the said accused. It has been argued that although PW-8, ASI Gurnam Singh, was

examined at length, the prosecution failed to produce the statements of the accused and by filing the present application, prosecution is trying to fill in a lacuna. It has been contended that the statements do not form a part of the charge-sheet and in any case, they cannot be read into evidence in view of the bar in Section 162, Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 14 SCC 328, as well as upon Vijay Kumar Versus State of U.P. (2011) 4 RCR (Criminal) 208; Mukesh P. Meena Versus CBI, ACB, Mumbai, (Criminal Application No.544-2021, decided on 30.06.2021) and Yogendra Singh Dohrey Versus State of U.P. and others 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1251. Another argument has been raised that the prosecution cannot be encouraged to file successive applications for recall of witnesses.

5.

Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the State. 6.

Upon instructions received, State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting that the application has been filed as an error was committed by the prosecution, which can be rectified under Section 311, Cr.P.C. While referring to the charge-sheet, State counsel has rebutted the submission of counsel for the petitioners and has asserted that the statements of the accused were recorded in the course of an enquiry and both the inquiry report and the statements from part of the charge-sheet presented upon conclusion of investigation.

7.

I have considered the respective submission of counsel for the parties.

This provision came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee's case (supra) and it has been held as under:- "11.