Crl. Misc. No.M-25638 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-25638 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 8, 2010 Santokh Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the legality or order dated June 14, 2010 dismissing the application under Section 209 Cr.P.C. for committal of the case of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions as prima facie offence under Section 328 IPC was made out against the accused. As per the allegations in the FIR Crl. Misc. No.M-25638 of 2010(O&M) [2] registered at the instance of petitioner, on December 7, 2007, he consumed liquor with his employee Bachan Singh. Then Bachan Singh requested for enhancement of his salary from ` 6000/- to ` 25000/- with ` 3000/- as additional expenses for petrol. The petitioner left in his car alongwith Baljit Singh, Driver for his house. Baljit Singh took the car on Kacha Road when Bachan Singh also arrived there on his scooter and got sniffed the petitioner some poisonous substance by holding his mouth while sitting in the car as a result of which the petitioner became unconscious. Bachan Singh, Baljit Singh and one another person thereafter assaulted the petitioner. Thereafter the Driver took him to his residence and left him at his house at 7.30 p.m. Wife of the petitioner, namely, Baljit Kaur took him to hospital. The claim of the petitioner is that since he had been administered intoxicant for the purpose of assaulting him, the offence under Section 328 IPC is made out. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.S. Sangha, has relied upon Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1978 PLR 385 to contend that in view of the said judgment, the Magistrate has to apply his mind before committing the case and the trial Court has failed to exercise powers in the present case. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered his arguments. Section 328 IPC reads as follows: “328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence:- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other Crl. Misc. No.M-25638 of 2010(O&M) [3] thing with intent to cause hurt such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing in to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A perusal of the abovesaid section indicates that when a person is administered any poisonous or any stupefying by intoxicating drug or other thing with an intention to cause hurt such person, or to facilitate the commission of an offence, then the offence can be punishable under Section 328 IPC warranting imprisonment which may extent to 10 years and fine. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two necessary ingredients; one is that there should be an intention to cause hurt and other is the administration of intoxicant for facilitating the commission of offence. In the present case, there is no medical evidence produced by the prosecution alongwith the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to arrive at a conclusion that there is sufficient evidence attracting the ingredients of Section 328 IPC. The oral testimony of the complainant uncorroborated by any medical evidence is not sufficient enough to enable the court to prima facie form an opinion that any poisonous substance was administered to the petitioner for any or he was intoxicated intentionally to such an extent that commission of offence of assault was facilitated. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Crl. Misc. No.M-25638 of 2010(O&M) [4] Without expression of any opinion on merits, this petition is dismissed as the inherent powers cannot be exercised in the present case for interfering in any interim order. October 8, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE