Criminal Revision No.1599 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1599 of 2008 Date of decision: 12th January, 2010 Amritpal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G.Haryana, for the respondent-State. A.N.JINDAL, J.(ORAL) Amritpal has assailed the legality of the order dated 12.07.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, summoning the petitioner as co-accused under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S.Act, who is the registered owner of the vehicle Jeep Trax bearing no. PB-03-F/2202 along with the other accused. The factual background of the case that the case was registered under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S Act against Gursewak Singh. During investigation of the said case, it came to light that Amritpal was the owner of the vehicle, however, the Investigating Officer cited him as witness in the case and chal`laned Gursewak Singh, for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Revision No.1599 of 2008 -2- accordingly charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, examined three witnesses including Amritpal but they did not support the prosecution case. Rather Amritpal submitted that Gursewak Singh was not the driver on the relevant date i.e.25.12.2002 but it was Kuldeep Singh son of Labh Singh Pandhi, resident of Bara Maur Kalan, was the driver of the vehicle. Amritpal did not support the prosecution case. Only in these circumstances, the prosecution had to move an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Amritpal as an accused to face the trial. Heard, admittedly, Amritpal was not arrested as an accused in the case and he was not even kept in column no. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously, for the reason that no evidence had come forth to establish that Amritpal did not know about the activities of the accused. He was working on his own and was not facilitating him to commit the crime, however, the trial court before collecting further evidence, in order to summon the petitioner to face the trial, obviously, without obtaining any fresh evidence qua complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, summoned him. The mere fact that Amritpal was the owner of the vehicle by itself is not sufficient for proceeding against him under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. To summon him for the said offence, it is to be brought on record that he allowed the accused Criminal Revision No.1599 of 2008 -3- to indulge in such activities or the contraband was being brought with his consent or knowledge but all these facts and circumstances are missing in the instant case. While going through the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court recorded the fact that three witnesses including Amritpal had resiled from their statementa. As a matter of fact, the case of Amritpal was that he never employed Gursewak Singh as his driver but Kuldeep Singh was his driver that is why he was not cited as an accused but as a witness in the case. The record does not reveal any material which may be sufficient to find out the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. Thus, the trial court has committed an error while summoning him as an accused in the instant case. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2008 and direct the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 12th January, 2010 Shivani Kaushik