Satpal v. Joginder Singh Saini


 



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : December 12, 2023 Satpal .....Petitioner Vs.

Joginder Singh Saini

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a connected petition, i.e. CRM-M-61376-2023, arising out of a different complaint, the following order was passed :- "1.

The defence evidence of the petitioner was closed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned JMIC, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, in complaint bearing NACT No.251/2018, dated 14.11.2018, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, caused grievance to the present petitioner, which led to filing of the instant petition, seeking quashing of order (supra).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in complaint (supra), and in defence, he wanted to examine the record keeper of SSP office concerned, to prove his innocence before the learned trial Court concerned. However, the learned trial

2023:PHHC:159321 -2Court concerned, erroneously and illegally closed the evidence of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2023.

3.

This Court examined all the zimni orders, as placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the instant petition, and the same reveals that, vide order dated 31.10.2023, the official of SSP office concerned was present for examination, however, he could not be examined on that day and resultantly, he was bound down to appear on 14.11.2023, i.e. the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the official concerned did not cause appearance, which led the learned trial Court concerned to issue non-bailable warrants for 24.11.2023 (Annexure P4). On 24.11.

2023, despite issuance of nonbailable warrants, the said official did not make an appearance before the learned trial Court concerned, and instead of taking further necessary action, the learned trial Court concerned erroneously closed the defence evidence of the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the case falls under action plan category, therefore, requires early disposal. Though, it is not under dispute that the instant complaint falls under action plan category and requires early disposal, however, that cannot be a ground to scuttle the right of an accused to examine witnesses in his defence. In the instant matter the witness i.e. record keeper of the SSP office concerned, was duly bound down for appearance on 14.11.

2023, by the learned trial Court concerned, despite that he was not examined and defence evidence of the accused-petitioner was closed by the learned trial Court concerned.

2023:PHHC:159321 -3would tantamount to denying the fair trial, which is a basic right of every accused person. The accused has a right to prove his innocence by leading his evidence in defence.

4.

At this stage, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent concerned, but this Court deems it appropriate to issue a mandamus upon learned trial Court concerned, to ensure the examination of official i.e. record keeper of SSP office concerned, who was bound-down to appear before the learned trial Court concerned, and thereupon, the final order be passed in the instant complaint. The impugned order is modified only to this extent.

5.

Disposed of accordingly.

In view of the aforementioned order, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to ensure the examination of the official, i.e. the Record Keeper, in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, concerned.

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) December 12, 2023 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO