Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & ... on 19 October, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-32913 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-32913 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-19.10.2012
Satish Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation -respondent No.1 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.53 dated 5.2.2001, for cheating and misappropriating of 4667 bags, weighing 3033.55 quintals of paddy, causing a huge loss to the complainant of ` 24,61,765/- and punishable under section 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur.
2. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the petitioner-accused. Consequently, he was charge sheeted on accusation of having committed the pointed offence and the case was slated for evidence of the CRM No.M-32913 of 2012 (O&M) 2 prosecution by the trial Court.
3. During the pendency of the case, the prosecution moved an application under section 311 Cr.PC (Annexure P5) for permission to examine PW Pawan Kumar, Manager of the complainant along with Ahlmad and original arbitration record etc. The application was accepted by the trial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure P7).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition (Annexure P8) filed by the petitioner-accused was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by means of impugned order dated 25.9.2012 (Annexure P9).
5. The petitioner-accused still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present 2nd revision petition, (which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition u/s 482 Cr.PC, to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P7 & P9).
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.
7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the prosecution has given up PW Pawan Kumar, so, the Courts below have committed a legal mistake to again summon him as a witness, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
8. As is evident from the record, that PW Pawan Kumar was inadvertently given up by the Public Prosecutor. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the evidence of PW Pawan Kumar is necessary to CRM No.M-32913 of 2012 (O&M) 3 prove the agreement between the parties and other documents. The mere fact that if the then PP has inadvertently given up PW Pawan Kumar, it ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to negate the prayer of prosecution to re-examine him u/s 311 Cr.PC. Once the trial Court is satisfied that the examination of PW Pawan Kumar and other witnesses, now sought to be examined, is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties, then, it has the vast powers and to me, the trial Court has rightly exercised its powers u/s 311 Cr.PC, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P7), which, in substance, is as under:-
"Firstly, it is to be seen that the witness sought to be examined by the prosecution was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses. As per the prosecution, they wish to prove the various documents and for that purpose the record is to be summoned alongwith Pawan Kumar. The above mentioned documents seem to be important for the just decision of the case alongwith witness Pawan Kumar. Furthermore, the accused would be caused no prejudice since he would have the right to cross examine the witness on the various documents. Accordingly, the application in hand is allowed. Let summons be sent to PW Pawan Kumar and also the concerned ahlmads of the court of Ld.Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh and Sangrur to bring forth the files as detailed in the application for 1.9.12."
9. Not only that, the matter was again examined and the revisional Court has duly considered the contentions, now sought to be urged and negate the pleas of the petitioner in this relevant connection.
10. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have examined the matter in the right perspective and correctly recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the present 2nd revision CRM No.M-32913 of 2012 (O&M) 4 petition (which is otherwise barred under section 397(3) Cr.PC), in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P7 & P9) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
19.10.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge