CRM No. M-22033 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22033 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.8.2009 Raghvinder @ Raghvinder Lal ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. On 12.8.2009 after recording the following contentions of counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the present case was not even named in the FIR. After investigation, name of the petitioner was mentioned in column No. 2 in the challan presented. It was for the reason that the truck, which was involved in the occurrence, was shown to be in the ownership of the petitioner. In fact, the truck was sold by him to one Pawan Kumar on 3.2.2006, which was even admitted by him before the Investigating Officer. The affidavit of Pawan Kumar, which was attested on the same day by a Notary Public, was also produced. Pawan Kumar immediately after purchase of truck from the petitioner, being a person engaged in buying and selling trucks, had sold it further to Gurpreet Singh on 7.3.2006. On account of the fact that ownership of the truck was not got transferred by the subsequent buyer in his name and it was still continuing in the name of the petitioner, he has been summoned now in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., merely noticing the fact that the petitioner has been mentioned in column No. 2 and there were 3-4 unknown persons, who had run away from the spot. The only reason, which is evident from the order, is that the petitioner is found to be registered owner CRM No. M-22033 of 2009 -2- of the truck which, according to the petitioner, had already been sold prior to the date of occurrence.” Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that Pawan Kumar admitted the fact that he had purchased the truck from the petitioner. However, he submitted that RC is still standing in the name of the petitioner. Once the factum of purchase of truck prior to the date of occurrence has been admitted by Pawan Kumar, I do not find that the petitioner is required to be sent to jail pending trial as he has only been summoned in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of order dated 12.8.2009 passed by this court, the petitioner has already appeared before the court below and furnished the bail bonds. He further submits that the petitioner will appear in court regularly in future so that the trial in the court below is not delayed. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already appeared before the court below and undertakes to appear regularly in future, the order passed by this court on 12.8.2009 is made absolute. Disposed of. 28.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge