HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) AMARJIT Kaur has filed the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 10-9-92 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar and to allow recalling and reexamination of Sub Inspector Gurnam Singh and the petitioner and to summon documents and witnesses as submitted in the application for leading additional evidence.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 11-4-1991 Doctor Mohan Lal husband of the petitioner was murdered and she lodged FIR No. 29 the same day at Police Station Mohali. According to the allegations in the First Information Report her husband was murdered by unknown assailants in front of his house. One of the assailants fired three shouts resulting in the death of Doctor Mohan Lal. It was further mentioned that the assailants took away scooter of the deceased. Respondents No. 2 to 5 were being tried in that case. The petitioner appeared as a witness for the prosecution and deposed that the assailants after committing murder of Mohan Lal took away his scooter bearing registration No. CH 01/B 6731. On 13-4-1991 Sub Inspector Gurnam Singh of Police Station sector 39, Chandigarh recovered scooter No. CH 01/B 6731 from the possession of Avtar Singh respondent in the area of village Dadu Majra in the presence of Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Singh and Raj Mohan Sarpanch of village Khuda Alisher. A-12 bore country-made pistol and cartridges were also recovered from his possession and in this connection a case FIR No. 58 dated 13-4-1991 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered in Police Station Section 39, Chandigarh. The scooter in question originally belonged to Jasinder Kaur wife of S. Kuldeep Singh and she had sold the same for Rs. 14,000/- to Mohan Lal deceased on 16-1-1991. This recovery of the scooter of the deceased from the possession of Avtar Singh respondent was material evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. That scooter was given on sapurdari to the petitioner by Designated Court, Chandigarh. The Additional Public Prosecutor made an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning and recalling the following witnesses alongwith the relevant record. 1. Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh alongwith the file of the case FIR No. 58 dated 13-4-1991 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. 2. Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh of Police Station Mohali. 3. Raj Mohan Sarpanch of village Khuda Alisher. 4. Ahlmad Designated Court, Chandigarh alongwith the judicial file of case FIR No. 58 dated 13-4-1991 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act. 5. Clerk DTO office, Chandigarh alongwith the record pertaining to registration of the scooter No. CH 01/B 6731. 6. Smt. Jasinder Kaur and 7. the petitioner. This application was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ropar on the ground that the prosecution wanted to introduce a new story. The petitioner alleged that his order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unwarranted, unjust and had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
(3.) IN the return filed by respondent it was alleged that the scooter shown to have been recovered from Avtar Singh in case FIR No. 58 was scooter No. CH01/B 6739 and statement made by Sub Inspector Gurnam Singh in that case was also to that effect. In fact no scooter was recovered from the possession of Avtar Singh respondent. As the scooter shown to have been recovered in case FIR No. 58 was different, no useful purpose was to be served by allowing the prosecution to lead additional evidence and the application was rightly rejected.;