4 09 1 1 9 Criminal Revision Noe1762 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No1762 of 20100 e 0 Date of Decision2 Ouly 2011 0 0 Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Petitioner eee I t5 VERSUS I State of Punjab and another Z 1 Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapersmay be allowed to see the judgment2 e2 r 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 I 3e Whether the judgmentshouid be reportedin the Digest 7 C0 Z CORAM 0 HONBLE MR JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL neo Z Presentl Mr RS Rai Senior Advocate with Ll MrAbhinav SoodAdvocate for the petitioner None for the respondenttate Mr Rakesh Nehra Advocate for respondentcomplainant No2 Balkar Singh MOHINDER PAL 3 Th is revision petition IS directed against the order dated 852010 passed by the Iearned Additional Sessions Judge Kapurthala whereby petitioner GurpreetSingh alias Gopi was Anita 2013.03.21 10: 49 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 410 0 0 2 Criminal Revision N01762 of 2010 summoned to face trial in case FR No 165 dated 28 102008 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short the Code registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthalaon the application moved by the prosecution under 1 0 Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 0 I have heard Mr RS Rai Senior Advocate assisted by C40 Z Mr Abhinav Sood Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr 0 Rakesh Nehra Advocate appearing for respondentcomplainant I No2 Balkar Singh and have gone throughthe records of the case Z The instant case was registeredon the basis of L statement of complainantespondentNo Balkar Singh In the occurrence which took place on 27102008 death of Didar I Co Singh had taken place Petitioner Gurpreet Singhalias Gopi had Z 41 been kept in column No2 by the investigatingagency In his CO depositionin Court Balkar Singh complainantPWl deposed that nv GurpreetSinghalias Gopi had caused a spade blow on the head Z of Didar Singh resultingItl his death Findingsufficient evidence ll against GurpreetSingh alias Gopi oetitioner the trial Judge summoned him to face trial vide the impugnedorder dated 82010 Duringthe course of arguments it has been vehemently argued by the Iearned Senior Counsel appearingfor the petitioner that the power exercised by the Iearned tria l Judge under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while summoning the petitioner to face trial in case FR No165 dated 28102008 under Section 302 read with Section 34 6f the Code registered Anita 2013.03.21 10: 49 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 411 0 9 8 Criminal Revision N01762 of 2010 at PoIice Station Sadar Kapurthala is pre mature as the statement of complainantBalkarSingh N ll has not as yet been completed However after giving my careful consideration to the argumentraised I do not find any substance therein 0 On 2462010 the followingorder was passed by this C0 Court 0 I Il Heard Z Learned counsel for the petitionerstates r that the sole questioninvolved in the present petition is as to whether power under Section I 40 319 CrC can be exercised before the Z crossexamination merelyon the basis of C0 examinationeirchief7 smno In view of the conflicting judgmentof Z the Honble SupremeCourt of India similar tl ISSue has been referred to the Iarger Bench in the matterof Hardeep Sinqh VsaState of Puniab and others reported in 2008 C41 RCR lCrln1 1947 In view of this the petition is admitted Meanwhile proceedingsbefore the trial Court shall remain stayed List the matter after final outcome of the case by the Iarger Bench of the Anita 2013.03.21 10: 49 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 412 0 0 4 Criminal Revision N01762 of 2010 Honble SupremeCourt of India Il Every case has its own facts Statement of complainant BalkarSingh PW 1Jrecorded by the trial Court on 892009 on 1C2 the basis of which the petitionerhas been summoned to face trial 0 in the instant case on an applicationmoved by the prosecutionunder 0 Section the Code of Criminal Procedure has been annexed I eae C5 with this petition as Annexure P3 Its perusal reveals that I though the examinationichief is consisted of only three and a Z haif pages but the crossexamination runs into about five pages meaningthereby the complainant had been subjectedto a very 0 Iengthycrossexamination As noticed above in his statement t0 before the trial Court as PW1 complainant Balkar Singh has Z attributed a clear aliegation against the petitioner that he had CQ givena spadeblow on the head of Didar Singh ieadingto his wmo death Needless to say it is only the petitioner who can crosse Z examine complainant Balkar Singh with regardto this allegation ll and none else The said observation of this Court IS despite the Iatitude given by Iearned counsel for complainantrespondent No2 before thisCourt on 15102010 tothe eHect that he has no objection if this petition is allowed to the extent that the matter IS remanded back to the Court below with a direction to pass fresh order after recording crossexamination of the witness which is only objectionof the petitioner In this View of the matter the iearned trial Judgewas quite justifiedin summoningthe petitionerto face trial in the instant case No fault therefore can be found with the impugned Anita 2013.03.21 10: 49 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 413 0 97 5 Criminal Revision N001762 of 2010 order Resultantlythere is no merit in this revision petition The same iS herebydismissed L0 1 July 2011 C PALI 1 ak JUDGE 0 0 I C5 I Z r6 L Z 10 7 Z ll Anita 2013.03.21 10: 49 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document