Gurinder Singh alias Natti vs State of Punjab

J.M. Tandon, J.

In Sessions case No. 42, relating to F.I.R. No. 272 dated 10th June, 1983, Police Station Saddar, Batala, under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Gurinder Singh alias Natti, petitioner, has been summoned to stand trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 25th January, 1984, which reads :

"Statement of Kashmira Singh PW has been recorded in part. He has given the eye witness account of the occurrence. According to the eye witness account of the occurrence given by him, Gurinder Singh alias Natti also fired at Harjit Singh alias Ghuk deceased with the intention to murder him and that the fire shots injuries caused by him proved fatal taken alongwith the fire shots injuries caused to him by his coaccused Balwinder Singh in conjunction with Jagir Singh. So Gurinder Singh alias Natti be summoned for his trial under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Their coaccused Joginder Singh and Balwinder Singh are already standing trial. Non bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Gurinder Singh alias Natti. To come up on 1321984."

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 25th January, 1984 in the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, after partly recording the statement of PW Kashmir Singh. The argument proceeds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could summon the petitioner only after recording the complete statement of PW Kashmir Singh and not before. Reliance has been placed on Amarjit Singh alias Amba v. The State of Punjab and another, 1983 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 643 : 1983 PLR 324 .

Mr. G.S. Tulsi, learned counsel for the State has rightly conceded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in summoning the petitioner to stand trial under Section 302 Indian Penal Code without recording the complete statement of PW Kashmir Singh.

In Amarjit Singh alias Amba''s case (supra) the Magistrate summoned the accused after recording the examinationinchief of a witness and before he could be cross examined. It was held that the order summoning the accused cannot be sustained and a direction was issued that the trial Magistrate shall complete the statement of the witness by giving an opportunity to the accused already standing trial to crossexamine the witness. It was added that in case the accused already standing trial declines to crossexamine the said witness, then the examinationinchief itself would constitute a complete statement and the same shall be considered evidence in terms of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. The ratio of Amarjit Singh alias Amba''s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case.

In the result the petition is allowed and the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 25th January, 1984 set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall now proceed according to law in the light of the observations made above.