Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sham Sunder Bassi vs State Of Punjab on 24 February, 2016

Author: Rajan Gupta

Bench: Rajan Gupta

           CRR No. 2041 of 2014                                                         1




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRR No. 2041 of 2014
                                                          Date of decision : 24.02.2016


           Sham Sunder Bassi
                                                                    ....Petitioner

                                                     V/s

           State of Punjab
                                                                    ....Respondent

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) whereby he has been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for commission of offence under section 120-B and 409 IPC and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial on an application being moved by Ajay Bhandari, one of the prosecution witness, who has no locus standi to file such an application. According to him, trial court without appreciating the evidence on record has wrongly summoned the petitioner. Thus, impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Plea has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2016.03.04 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR No. 2041 of 2014 2 Brief factual background of the case is that a case was registered by Vigilance Bureau on 11.01.2007 against Om Parkash Sharma and Kuldeep Singh under sections 409, 120-B IPC and section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner was working as District Manager in Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited at the relevant time. An agreement dated 19.10.2005 was executed between Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation through District Manager Sham Sunder Bassi (petitioner herein) and M/s Jyoti Rice and General Mills for milling of Paddy for the period 2005-06. An affidavit dated 19.10.2005 was also submitted by M/s Jyoti Rice and General Mills to the Corporation wherein one Ajay Bhandari (a prosecution witness on whose application petitioner was summoned) was shown as a guarantor for all the supplies being made to Firm. After completion of investigation, final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the accused before the competent court. During pendency of trial, said Ajay Bhandari (prosecution witness) moved an application before the court below for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. He alleged that affidavit dated 19.10.2005 which was given along with agreement dated 19.10.2005 to Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation by M/s Jyoti Rice and General Mills in which he was shown as a gurantor was never in his knowledge. Petitioner who was working as District Manager in the Corporation had never confirmed from him about the veracity or authenticity of the said affidavit. In fact, this was done by M/s Jyoti Rice and General Mills in connivance with petitioner. He further alleged that during the course of AJAY KUMAR investigation, 2016.03.04 14:31 he had submitted a written complaint dated I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR No. 2041 of 2014 3 01.11.2007 wherein he categorically stated that he never furnished any affidavit dated 19.10.2005 to Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation. Moreover, when his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.11.2007, he had asserted that affidavit dated 19.10.2005 was not in his knowledge and he never signed the same. It was forged and fabricated document. On this application, trial court felt that petitioner needed to be summoned as additional accused to face trial for commission of offences under section 120-B and 409 IPC and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC. I find no infirmity with the order. It is evident that trial court has summoned the petitioner on the basis of available evidence on record. It appears that order passed by the trial court is within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in judgment reported as Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & ors. 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. Revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

           February 24, 2016                                           (RAJAN GUPTA)
           Ajay                                                             JUDGE




AJAY KUMAR
2016.03.04 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document