2017 (11) TMI 1984 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms summoning additional accused, modifies charge-sheet filing, quashes warrants, defers evidentiary matters.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Ors. Versus State of Punjab

Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Ors. Versus State of Punjab - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allegations of mala fide actions by the prosecution.2. Petitioners not being named in the initial stages of the investigation.3. Timing and validity of the application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).4. Admissibility and legality of evidence used to summon additional accused.5. Legality of the trial court’s direction to file a supplementary charge-sheet.6. Issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions by the Prosecution:The petitioners argued that the prosecution's actions were mala fide and aimed at damaging the reputation of one petitioner, who is a political figure. However, the court found no specific allegations or adequate pleadings against any particular person. It was noted that the FIR was registered when a different government was in power, and the petitioner had withdrawn a petition for a CBI investigation, undermining claims of serious mala fide actions.2. Petitioners Not Being Named in Initial Investigation Stages:The petitioners contended that they were not named in the FIR or during the initial investigation stages. The court held that this argument was irrelevant to the power of the court under Section 319 CrPC, which allows summoning additional accused if sufficient evidence emerges during the trial.3. Timing and Validity of the Application under Section 319 CrPC:The petitioners claimed that the trial court became functus officio after delivering the judgment and could not summon additional accused. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, which allows the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC even after the conclusion of the trial. The court emphasized that a de novo trial must be conducted for the newly added accused, and the trial court's simultaneous order to summon additional accused on the judgment date was valid.4. Admissibility and Legality of Evidence:The petitioners argued that the evidence used to summon them was inadmissible. The court noted that issues of evidence admissibility and relevance are matters for the trial and can be contested during the de novo trial. The court found that some parts of the evidence were admissible, and the prosecution could present additional evidence during the de novo trial. The court also allowed the prosecution to file certified copies of documents, including the writ petition filed by one petitioner, as evidence.5. Legality of the Trial Court’s Direction to File a Supplementary Charge-Sheet:The court acknowledged that while a trial court cannot order the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet, the investigating agency has the liberty to file one under Section 173 CrPC. The court modified the trial court's order to reflect this, allowing the investigating agency to file a supplementary charge-sheet if deemed necessary.6. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants Against the Petitioners:The court found that the trial court overstepped by issuing non-bailable warrants without recording reasons. The court quashed this part of the order and allowed the petitioners to apply for anticipatory or regular bail before the trial court, which should consider such applications on their merits.Conclusion:The court upheld the trial court's order under Section 319 CrPC but modified the direction regarding the supplementary charge-sheet. It quashed the issuance of non-bailable warrants and allowed the petitioners to seek bail. The trial court's decision to summon additional accused was found to be legally sound, and the evidence issues were left to be addressed during the de novo trial.