Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision is to the order dated February 6, 2007 passed by Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr summoning the petitioner in application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").
(2.) THE case arises out of FIR No. 226 dated December 2, 2004 registered under Section 15/61/85 of the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985 at Police Station, Balachaur, District Nawanshahr against Ajit Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Baba and on his disclosure the name of Jasvir Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh, the petitioner was also added. However, after completing investigation, police did not find sufficient evidence against the petitioner and accordingly did not file challan against him. It was during the trial that application was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code for summoning the petitioner and vide impugned order, the petitioner was summoned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Infact on November 30, 2004 at 8.30 P.M. an accident took place between two trucks bearing registration No. PB -32 -9033 belonging to Ranjit Singh @ Ajit Singh @ Baba and the other truck bearing No. HR -55 -A -4758. As a result of accident, the driver of truck No. PB -32 -9033, namely, Tarlok Singh died on the spot. As the petitioner was following in his truck, the trucks which met with accident, on his statement FIR under Section 279, 304 -A and 427 IPC was registered against Jaswant Singh driver of truck No. HR -55 -A -4758. At the relevant time, the truck of the petitioner was loaded with cement to be delivered at Banga. The Petitioner remained present with the police through out as he had sent his cleaner with the truck to unload cement at Banga. It was only on December 01, 2004 that the body of Tarlok Singh was handed over to his family members and Ajit Singh @ Ranjit Singh was also present at that time. Thereafter in the evening the petitioner went to the petrol pump of Chaman Lal to settle his account and remained there till 9/10 P.M. When he reached back in his village, he came to know that his truck bearing registration No. PB 32 A -1697 had been borrowed by Ajit Singh @ Ranjit Singh to shift the goods from the damaged truck. It was for the reason that both the petitioner and Ajit Singh @ Ranjit Singh are residents of the same village. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that Ajit Singh was arrested for possessing 37 bags of poppy husk at Police Post, Ansron in the truck of the petitioner and the petitioner had also been named in the said FIR. The FIR regarding seizure of poppy husk against Ajit Singh was recorded on December 2, 2004 of the incident which took place at 8.15 P.M. on December 1, 2004. The truck of the petitioner was seized alongwith poppy husk. However, during investigation by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), the petitioner was not found to be guilty as it was opined that Jasvir Singh does not resemble the person, who had run away from the spot as he was fat. As no case was made out against the petitioner during the investigation, no challan was presented against him and it was only during the trial that in the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code, the petitioner was summoned. Assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr dated February 6, 2007, the submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the evidence on record was not sufficient to opine that the petitioner is guilty of offence and needs to be tried alongwith other accused. The satisfaction as is required to be recorded in terms of Section 319 of the Code was not there. He has relied upon Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 75 and Krishnappa v. : 2004CriLJ4185 .
(3.) ON the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State submitted that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for the simple reason that truck, which was used in the offence was owned by the petitioner. Even the co -accused had stated that person, who had run away from the spot was the petitioner. Accordingly, keeping in view the object that no criminal should escape the clutches of law, the learned Court below has rightly exercised its power to summon the petitioner. In case he is found to be innocent, he would be discharged.;