Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5.8.2008 Manmeet Singh alias Goldi and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.3.2006 whereby charges have been framed against five accused namely, Malkiat Singh, Manmeet Singh alias Goldi, Satnam Singh alias Satta, Balwinder Singh, and Sukhwinder Singh, in a case FIR No. 225 dated 3.11.2003 registered at Police Station Sadar Malerkotla under Sections 302, 396, 397, 148, and 149 IPC. The sixth accused namely Gurbachan Singh was declared as Proclaimed Offender. It will be apposite here to reproduce the charge sheet framed by the trial Court:- “CHARGE SHEET I, Inderjit Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, do hereby charge you, aforesaid accused Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 2 as under:- First that on 3.11.2003 at about 1.30 pm in the area of Malerkotla you all the accused were the members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, committed the offence of rioting and at that time you all were armed with deadly weapons and thereby you all to wit, committed the offence of dacoity and murder and thus, you all committed the offence punishable U/s 148 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, on the same date, time and place, you Manmeet Singh @ Goldi and Sukhwinder Singh did commit the murder of Swaran Singh and Pritam Singh by intentionally causing the death of Swaran Singh and Pritam Singh and you both the accused, thereby committed the offence U/s 302 IPC and you Malkiat Singh, Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh committed an offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 149 and within the cognizable of this Court. Thirdly, on the same date, time and place in furtherance of common object of you all, you accused Manmeet Singh @ Goldi and Sukhwinder Singh committed dacoity and that in the commission of such dacoity, you both also committed the murder Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 3 of Swaran Singh and Pritam Singh you both thereby committed an offence under Section 396 IPC and at that time you committed the dacoity of Rs.4.30 lakh and revolver of 32 bore of Swaran Singh deceased and you both thereby committed the offence u/s 396 IPC, whereas you Malkiat Singh, Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh accused committed an offence U/s 396 read with Section 149 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. And I hereby direct that you all the accused be tried by this Court under the aforesaid offence”. In the present petition, order framing charge has not been annexed. What was the material before the trial Court to frame the impugned charge sheet? is not before this Court. Counsel for the petitioners contends that case of the petitioners is para-materia same with the case of Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh. Counsel for the petitioners further states that whole case of the prosecution hinges upon confession made by the accused during interrogation and for this only statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the police officials have been recorded and the same are inadmissible in evidence. Counsel further states that a supplementary statement of complainant has been also recorded. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P5) passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 774 of 2006. This Criminal Revision Petition was preferred Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 4 by Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh. His Lordship (M.M.Aggarwal, Judge who then was) passed the following order:- “Criminal Revision No. 774 of 2006 Present: Mr. Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.S.Bhandari, DAG Punjab This is petition against order dated 9.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby accused-petitioners had been charged for the offence under Section 302/396/148/149 Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners argues from the challan report that there is no admissible evidence as against the petitioners and there is only confessional statement made before ASI, which is inadmissible. In this case, State was directed to check up whether there was any statement any witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioners. On behalf of the State, it is stated that there is no statement of any witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioners. From the challan report also, it would come out that petitioners were arrested in case FIR No. 81 dated 24.7.2002 under Sections 382/34 Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 5 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59-A of the Arms Act and then on 4.8.2004 they had made confession about their involvement in the present case. Since from the challan itself, it would appear that there is no admissible evidence as against the petitioners and it is now admitted that there is no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioners, the accused-petitioners could not be charge-sheeted. Under these circumstances, this petition is accepted and order of framing of charge dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur is set aside. Disposed of. September 28, 2006 Sd/-M.M.Aggarwal, Judge”. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid order was made subject matter of Special Leave Petition and probably the same was dismissed and the order has attained finality. Counsel further states that role of the petitioners is same to the role assigned to Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh. Counsel further states that parity demands that the same treatment should also flow to the petitioners. Hence, the order framing charge and the charge sheet (Annexure P1) are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court. Trial Court shall meticulously examine the entire challan and Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2006 6 if come to conclusion that the role of the petitioners is similar to the role of Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh, they shall be treated in same way as ordered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 774 of 2006. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 5, 2008 “DK”