Criminal Misc. No. M-308 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-308 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 Ranjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 55558-M of 2006, the same was disposed of on 14.9.2006. The contention of counsel was noticed and it was ordered as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. In fact only two plots are stated to have been sold and no offence is made out. However, it is stated that the challan has since been presented and the case is pending consideration for the purpose of charge. It is also argued that sanction as required under Section 38 of the Act was not obtained. Criminal Misc. No. M-308 of 2008 2 This petition is disposed of with an observation that let the petitioner raise all the pleas available before the trial Court at the time of consideration of charge and trial Court shall pass detailed speaking order”. In the present case, Balwant Singh had sold his land measuring 3 kanals & 14 marlas on 12.6.1997. Petitioner Ranjit Singh had also sold his land on 12.6.1997 measuring 8 kanals. Co-accused had also sold land measuring 4 kanals 6 marlas and 8 kanals on 19.9.1997. Case of prosecution is that all the three accused acted in concert and had sold the land for raising a colony. A perusal of charge sheet show that Ranjeet Singh and Gurdev Kaur had acted in criminal conspiracy with their co-accused Balwant Singh since deceased. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of order dated 14.9.2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 55558-M of 2006, defence counsel had raised all the arguments before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P5) in which framing of charge was ordered reveal that defence counsel had submitted general omnibus submissions to the extent that no offence is made out and there is no document on record from which the criminal conspiracy can be inferred. The Public Prosecutor had specifically stated that by clubbing the sale deeds executed on 12.6.1997 and 19.9.1997, which were more Criminal Misc. No. M-308 of 2008 3 than three, offence of criminal conspiracy is made out. Counsel for the petitioner states that the submission raised have not been specifically dealt with by the trial Court. The trial Court used the term “strong evidence” and “prima facie for presuming that the accused have committed the offence”. What are the considerations to repel the contentions raised by defence counsel are not evident from the whole perusal of the order framing charge. Taking these submissions into consideration, it is ordered that counsel for the petitioner shall submit written submissions before the trial Court, urging that he should not be charged for the offences which the prosecution intend should be formulated against the petitioner. Written submission made shall be dealt with by the trial Court by passing a speaking order. Needless to say that order framing charge dated 29.11.2007 and charge sheet dated 29.11.1997 formulated against the petitioner are set aside. Trial Court after hearing the parties shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order and if need be to formulate a fresh charge sheet. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 19, 2009 “DK”