Crl. Rev. No.95 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.95 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.04.2011 Shingara Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the application moved by the prosecution to discharge the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the application was moved by the prosecution to discharge the petitioner from the case and the same was dismissed, he restricts his prayer for discharge the petitioner from custody and not from the case. The facts, in short, are that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated into and final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted. Initially, as many as, five Crl. Rev. No.95 of 2011 2 persons were arrayed as an accused by the Investigating Agency, namely, Manjit Singh, Amrik Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Jatinder Singh and the present petitioner-Shingara Singh. The Investigating Agency sought to present the final report only against Manjit Singh, Amrik Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Jatinder Singh, whereas, the present petitioner was placed in column No.2. Thereafter, the Investigating Agency moved an application for discharge of the petitioner from the present case. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court primarily on the ground that the matter had not been properly enquired into and also on the ground that the petitioner was involved in earlier two other cases also, as well as, on the ground that he was declared a proclaimed offender. Heard. A perusal of the discharge application shows that the recommendation had been made to drop the P.O proceedings against the present petitioner. Moreover, it is not disputed that the similarly situated co- accused of the petitioner have been acquitted vide judgment dated 19.08.2010 (AnnexureP-4) passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner was arrested in August 2009 and till date, no challan has been filed against him. In view of the above facts as also taking into account the limited prayer of the petitioner that he be discharged from the custody and is ready to face trial in case the challan is filed against him, the revision petition is allowed to that extent and the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur is set aside only to the limited extent, vide which, the petitioner has not been discharged from the custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be discharged from the custody in the present FIR only. However, as and when or if the challan is filed against the present petitioner, he shall surrender before the trial Court upon notice issued to him for the said purpose, if not already in Crl. Rev. No.95 of 2011 3 custody in other pending cases against him. The investigation as ordered by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur will go on. Disposed of in the above terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 20.04.2011 JUDGE gurpreet