CRR-1774-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 120 Rajinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR No. 67 dated 16.03.2021, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 District SAS 2 has been ordered to be treated as nil. 2. trial in the aforesaid FIR and has been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. PW the counsel of the petitioner on 24.07.2024 and his further cross examination was deferred to 04.10.2024 as the Court time was over. On 04.10.2024, PW did not turn up and his presence w warrants for 16.12.2024. Although PW counsel for the petitioner was busy before some other Court and when he reached the Court, he came to know that the case had been adjourned 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025, no PW came present and the case was adjourned 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajinder Singh Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Jatinder Singh Mundi, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR No. 67 dated 16.03.2021, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 District SAS Nagar, whereby remaining cross 2 has been ordered to be treated as nil. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is facing trial in the aforesaid FIR and has been regularly appearing before the learned l Court. PW-1 Constable Gurwinder Singh was partly cross examined by the counsel of the petitioner on 24.07.2024 and his further cross examination was deferred to 04.10.2024 as the Court time was over. On 04.10.2024, PW did not turn up and his presence was ordered to be secured through bailable warrants for 16.12.2024. Although PW-1 came present on 16.12.2024 but the counsel for the petitioner was busy before some other Court and when he reached the Court, he came to know that the case had been adjourned 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025, no PW came present and the case was adjourned -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1774-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Jatinder Singh Mundi, Advocate petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR No. 67 dated 16.03.2021, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kharar, Nagar, whereby remaining cross-examination of PW-1 and PW rned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is facing trial in the aforesaid FIR and has been regularly appearing before the learned 1 Constable Gurwinder Singh was partly cross examined by the counsel of the petitioner on 24.07.2024 and his further cross examination was deferred to 04.10.2024 as the Court time was over. On 04.10.2024, PW as ordered to be secured through bailable 1 came present on 16.12.2024 but the counsel for the petitioner was busy before some other Court and when he reached the Court, he came to know that the case had been adjourned 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025, no PW came present and the case was adjourned 2025 (O&M) 24.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent against the order dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR Narcotic at Police Station Kharar, 1 and PW- rned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is facing trial in the aforesaid FIR and has been regularly appearing before the learned 1 Constable Gurwinder Singh was partly cross examined by the counsel of the petitioner on 24.07.2024 and his further cross examination was deferred to 04.10.2024 as the Court time was over. On 04.10.2024, PW-1 as ordered to be secured through bailable 1 came present on 16.12.2024 but the counsel for the petitioner was busy before some other Court and when he reached the Court, he came to know that the case had been adjourned to 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025, no PW came present and the case was adjourned MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.25 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1774-2025 (O&M) to 03.05.2025, on which date, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to noting down a wrong date. Consequently, examination of PW trial Court. It is argued that the absence of the counsel representing the petitioner before the Court concerned on the said date was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furth settled law that the accused and the trial Court should not have the impugned order. A great prejudice shall be caused to the rights of defenc of the petitioner, if the aforesaid PWs are not allowed to be cross examined. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity t further cross examined the aforesaid witnesses. 3. perused the material placed on record. 4. learned trial Court reveals that it was the prosecution witnesses as well as the counsel for the petitioner, who failed to appear on some dates before the Court. On previous occasion, even bailable warrants were issued against PW 1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his counsel has taken a plea that he had noted down a wrong date a Court. The above conduct of the indicative that he has negligence is not of the kind which would consequence that be treated the petitioner, which is indeed an important right given to an accused. 2025 (O&M) to 03.05.2025, on which date, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to noting down a wrong date. Consequently, examination of PW-1 and PW-2 was ordered to be treated as nil by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the absence of the counsel representing the petitioner before the Court concerned on the said date was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furth settled law that the right to cross examination and the trial Court should not have the impugned order. A great prejudice shall be caused to the rights of defenc of the petitioner, if the aforesaid PWs are not allowed to be cross examined. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity t further cross examined the aforesaid witnesses. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the material placed on record. A perusal of the record as well as the zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court reveals that it was the prosecution witnesses as well as the ounsel for the petitioner, who failed to appear on some dates before the Court. On previous occasion, even bailable warrants were issued against PW 1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his counsel has taken a plea that he had noted down a wrong date and that is why he could not appear before the The above conduct of the counsel for the petitioner indicative that he has been negligent in negligence is not of the kind which would consequence that cross examination of two significant prosecution witnesses be treated as nil as the same will definitely prejudice the right of defence of the petitioner, which is indeed an important right given to an accused. -2- to 03.05.2025, on which date, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to noting down a wrong date. Consequently, the remaining cross dered to be treated as nil by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the absence of the counsel representing the petitioner before the Court concerned on the said date was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that cross examination is an important right given to an and the trial Court should not have been hyper-technical in passing the impugned order. A great prejudice shall be caused to the rights of defenc of the petitioner, if the aforesaid PWs are not allowed to be cross examined. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity t further cross examined the aforesaid witnesses. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also A perusal of the record as well as the zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court reveals that it was the prosecution witnesses as well as the ounsel for the petitioner, who failed to appear on some dates before the Court. On previous occasion, even bailable warrants were issued against PW 1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his counsel has taken a plea that he nd that is why he could not appear before the counsel for the petitioner is certainly in pursuing the case. However, negligence is not of the kind which would leave the petitioner with such cross examination of two significant prosecution witnesses as nil as the same will definitely prejudice the right of defence of the petitioner, which is indeed an important right given to an accused. to 03.05.2025, on which date, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear the remaining cross dered to be treated as nil by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the absence of the counsel representing the petitioner before the Court concerned on the said date was neither intentional argued that it is given to an passing the impugned order. A great prejudice shall be caused to the rights of defence of the petitioner, if the aforesaid PWs are not allowed to be cross examined. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also A perusal of the record as well as the zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court reveals that it was the prosecution witnesses as well as the ounsel for the petitioner, who failed to appear on some dates before the Court. On previous occasion, even bailable warrants were issued against PW- 1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his counsel has taken a plea that he nd that is why he could not appear before the s certainly case. However, his th such cross examination of two significant prosecution witnesses as nil as the same will definitely prejudice the right of defence of The MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.25 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1774-2025 (O&M) primary duty of obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case the petitioner under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the parties. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deserves some leniency trial is directed to accord one effective opportunity to the petitioner to further cross examine the afore 24.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) primary duty of the Court is to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case, which cannot be done without giving an the petitioner to further cross examined the under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deserves some leniency. Accordingly, the petition is trial is directed to accord one effective opportunity to the petitioner to further cross examine the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 24.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct , which cannot be done without giving an opportunity to further cross examined the said witnesses. The Courts are under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner . Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The learned trial is directed to accord one effective opportunity to the petitioner to further said prosecution witnesses. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct opportunity to ourts are under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the petitioner learned trial is directed to accord one effective opportunity to the petitioner to further MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.25 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document