AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in NDPS Case No.14/2016, whereby the application preferred on behalf of the prosecution for summoning the Investigating Officer PW-9 Swarndas to give further evidence has been allowed.
The petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. During the course of trial, the statements of Investigating Officer Swarndas were recorded as PW-9, however, FSL Report, which was very much available on record, could not be exhibited. The prosecution moved an application with a prayer for recalling the Investigating Officer PW-9 Swarndas for the purpose of exhibiting the FSL Report and the trial court has allowed the said application while observing that as the FSL Report is an important document in the matter and by exhibiting the same, the court will be able to reach to a just decision of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice the recalling of Investigating Officer PW-9 Swarndas is appropriate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that by allowing the prayer of the prosecution of recalling the Investigating Officer PW-9 Swarndas, the trial court has granted an opportunity to the prosecution to fill the lacuna.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that due to mistake the FSL Report could not be exhibited at the time of recording the statements of Investigating Officer as PW-9 Swarndas, therefore, the trial court is justifying in granting the prayer of the prosecution to recall the Investigating Officer PW-9 Swarndas. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in NDPS cases the FSL Report is important document on the basis of which the trial court can reach up to the just decision and, therefore, order impugned is not liable to be interfered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the impugned order and after taking into consideration the fact that the trial court while passing the impugned order in its discretion has observed that the FSL Report would help the court to reach to a just decision, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned.
Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.