IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 25821 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.10.2011 Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 7. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Crl. Misc. No. 54221 of 2011 Reply taken on record. Application disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M- 25821 of 2011 The petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the witness as prosecution witness. As per the petitioner, civil suit titled Didar Singh versus Sukhjinder Singh and another bearing Civil Suit No. 340 dated 22.08.2006 was dismissed on 09.03.2010 by the court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ropar. The respondents, who were the accused in this case, had led evidence in the civil suit and has made statement as defence witnesses. The respondents-accused had made statements to the effect that the sale consideration was passed to plaintiff, Didar Singh, Crl. Misc. No. M- 25821 of 2011 -2- in different way. It is stated that they were not consistent in deposing about the manner of passing the sale consideration to Sh. Didar Singh. The suit was decreed. The finding returned by the Civil Court are stated to be under challenge before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. The accused had chosen to lead the decree passed in the civil suit in their defence. Since the appeal is pending against this order, the petitioner moved an application for summoning the Ahlmad of the Court to produce the entire record of the civil suit. The petitioner had prayed for placing on record the complete file of evidence of DWs. It is prayed that this evidence is essential and hence the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the civil Court is likely to place reliance on a decree passed by the civil Court, which is yet to acquire finality. Counsel otherwise have not be able to justify as to how the statements made by the accused in civil suit would be relevant as piece of evidence in a criminal trial. Without going into the aspect whether the Ahlmad would be competent to depose the statement of witness recorded in the civil suit, I do not find these statements to be relevant in any manner. Except that these statements being previous statements and open to limited use for contradiction and corroboration, such statements can never become substantive evidence in a criminal trial. That being the legal effect of such statements, these would not have much relevance so far as decision in the criminal case is concerned. The Crl. Misc. No. M- 25821 of 2011 -3- petitioner ought to have used this for the limited purposes in terms of Section 145 Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of contradiction and for corroboration under Section 156 Indian Evidence Act. The use of statements as is being sought by the petitioner, may not be legally permissible. The apprehension of the petitioner that the judgment in the criminal court would follow the decision of the civil suit, which is yet to acquire finality also is misplaced. The criminal case would be decided on the basis of evidence that has been led in the trial and the judgment passed in the civil suit would be one piece of evidence on which respective parties would raise all the statements in regard to the values attached to such piece of evidence. No case for interference in the impugned order otherwise is made out. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE