Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2009 Date of decision : 13.11.2009 Manjinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. J.S.Parmar, Advocate for the complainant. S. D. ANAND, J. The summoning of the petitioner, as a PW, to prove an extra- judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent-accused was ordered by the learned Trial Judge while allowing a plea for the purpose aforementioned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which had been filed by the respondent-complainant. The petitioner-accused is in revision against the order aforementioned. It is common ground before me that the name of Tarinder Singh son of Inder Singh was not indicated in the list of witnesses and that no statement of his under Section 161 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Learned State Counsel resists the relief sought by the petitioner by arguing that presence of Tarinder Singh would be required to prove an extra- judicial confession which had been made by the respondent-accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in a plea of resistance, argues that the summoning of Tarinder Singh is inappropriate in view of the fact that the only witness of the extra-judicial confession i.e. Bir Singh had turned hostile to the prosecution plea, in the course of his statement Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2009 -2- **** recorded on 8.8.2009. In response to a poser by the Court, the learned State Counsel as also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant concede that prosecution is relying upon a verbal extra-judicial confession which had not been reduced into writing. If the plea aforementioned were to be allowed, it would open a virtual Pandora box. There is nothing before this Court to allow the prosecution to examine any other witness of a transaction when it finds that the cited witnesses are not supporting the prosecution plea, particularly when the own averment of the prosecution is that the averred extra-judicial confession was verbal in character, the name of Tarinder Singh had not been cited in the list of witnesses and that no statement of his had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The adoption of such a course would not be in accord with law. The petition shall stand allowed. The summoning order shall stand set aside. Disposed of accordingly. November 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE