IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.309 of 2002 Date of decision: January 27, 2010 Gurnam Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 3.1.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. An FIR No.95 dated 20.12.1991 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 419/420/467/468/120-B IPC at Police Station City Mansa, on the allegations that they had forged a Will. However, after investigation a cancellation report was submitted in the court on 2.3.1996 upon which the accused-petitioners were discharged vide order dated 30.8.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. However, on the same set of facts, without collecting any further or fresh evidence, same cancellation report was submitted in the court and he court after recording statement of the complainant ordered to summon the accused. However, the court wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa as to why they were submitting same cancellation report time and again. Learned State counsel has not denied the legal proposition that after one cancellation report is submitted, no further report could be submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. except on a fresh report and there was no fresh evidence with the police after the cancellation report was submitted and accepted by the court on 30.8.1996. Irrespective of the fact that the court did not mention in its order dated 30.8.1996 that the cancellation report is accepted, yet, from the language of the order it transpires that the Criminal Revision No.309 of 2002 -2- court after accepting the cancellation report had discharged the accused and the accused were not discharged only on the ground that the challan was not presented in the court. As a matter of fact, the court took a wrong view of the fact while stating that they were discharged only for the reason that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was not presented in the court. Further more, the order dated 30.8.1996, discharging the accused was never challenged by the prosecution or the complainant by way of any appeal or revision and that had become final. In view of the law laid down in the judgment delivered in case Surendra Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 575 no second cancellation report could be submitted by the police except on a fresh evidence when once the accused had been discharged. To summon the accused again on the same set of facts by receiving second report would amount to review of the previous order which is not permissible for the trial court to do so. The trial court did not take note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and appears to have summoned the accused under a bona fide mistake that they were never discharged earlier which is apparent from his letter No.1015 written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa recording that earlier order came to his notice only at the time when he started recording order. As such, the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice and it being illegal on the face of it warrants interference at my end. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 3.1.2002 and remit the case back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. January 27, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge