CRM No. M 22590 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 22590 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Abnish Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition for quashing of the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar and the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar with a further prayer to stay the implementation of the said orders during the pendency of this petition. The facts, in short, are that charges under Section 406 IPC were framed against the petitioner vide order dated 27.09.2006. After examination of few witnesses, the prosecution moved an application dated 09.06.2008 before the trial Court for permission to lead secondary evidence CRM No. M 22590 of 2009 2 regarding agreement dated 04.11.1999, copies of the receipts dated 08.12.1999 and 26.10.1999. The trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 11.08.2008. The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order dated 11.08.2008 before the Court of Sessions. The additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar dismissed the same on 30.05.2009. The order dated 11.08.2008 and the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge are impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following arguments;- The prosecution wanted to lead the secondary evidence regarding the agreement and the copies of the receipts as the said documents were stolen from the possession of the department of Food and Supplies, Punjab. In that regard, FIR No. 127 dated 17.08.2004 under Section 457, 380 IPC was got registered at the Police Station City Muktsar. Whereas, the investigation revealed that no such theft took place and the cancellation of the FIR stood recommended by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muktsar on 02.10.2004. It is stated that, in case, the said cancellation report had been brought to the notice of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, the result of the same would have been different. It is not disputed that the said cancellation report was not in the knowledge of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar while deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter should be remanded back to the trial Court to re-consider the matter in the light of the cancellation report prepared in FIR No. 127 dated CRM No. M 22590 of 2009 3 17.08.2004 under Section 457, 380 IPC got registered at the Police Station City Muktsar. Accordingly, the order dated 30.50.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar and the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar are hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to re-consider the application in view of the cancellation report prepared by the investigating agency in the theft case. However, nothing said herein above shall have any bearing on the case and the application shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 08.02.2011 mohan