Allowed

State of J and K through Drug Inspector v. M/S Syed Sons Enterprises through Ayed Ishrat Hussain

J&K HC18 Nov 2025CRR/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a drugs offence complaint, the trial court refused to recall the complainant for re-examination to mark investigation documents as exhibits. The High Court held recall was essential to a just decision, set aside the order, and directed re-examination with cross-examination opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to recall and re-examine the complainant, with cross-examination opportunity for the accused.

State of J and K through Drug Inspector Vs M/S Syed Sons… — Quashing and FIR | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Serial No. 25. Reg Cause List.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CRR 12/2018 IA(1/2018)

¶4

STATE OF J AND K THROUGH DRUG INSPECTOR.

¶5

…Petitioner (s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/S SYED SONS ENTERPRISES THROUGH AYED ISHRAT HUSSAIN.

Through: None.

…Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER

¶13

18-11-2025

¶14

The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged the order dated 14^th of November, 2017, passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) whereby the application of the petitioner/complainant filed under Section 540 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including the trial court record.

¶16

It appears that the petitioner had filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rule 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules against the respondent before the

¶17

learned trial court. It further appears that during the pendency of the complaint, an application came to be filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for recalling the complainant, namely Shri Sameer Sajad, for his re-examination on the ground that the same is necessary for the just decision of the case.

¶18

The said application has, however, been dismissed by the learned trial court by virtue of the impugned order. While dismissing the application, the learned trial court observed that only an ominous statement for recalling the complainant as a witness had been made in the application and no particulars or substantial reasons for issuance of such a direction were mentioned in the application.

¶19

At first blush, the reasons assigned by the learned trial court for rejecting the petitioner’s application for recalling the witness may appears to be convincing. However, when we have a closer look at the record of the case, it emerges that at the time when the statement of the complainant was recorded, the documents executed by the complainant during the course of investigation were put to him without being marked as exhibits. It further appears that the complainant, while making his statement has identified his signatures on these documents and even admitted the contents thereof. The learned trial court has, however, omitted to put exhibit marks on these documents so that the same could be read in evidence. It seems that for this particular purpose the petitioner intended to recall the complainant for his re-examination. In fact, learned counsel for the complainant had explained this position to the trial court but the said court despite noticing his argument, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner’s application.

¶20

Section 540 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr.PC empowers a criminal court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and if such recall or examination is essential to the justice decision of the case, the court is bound to exercise such power. The power vested by Section 540 of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr.PC can be exercised by the Criminal Court even without there being any application on behalf of the parties, if the court is satisfied that doing so would be essential for just decision of the case.

¶21

The learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application of the complainant merely on the basis that the application was deficient in particulars. It was incumbent upon the trial court to test the argument of learned counsel for the complainant in the light of the record available before the said court. As has been already noted, the complainant, while making his statement before the trial court, admitted the execution and contents of the documents which he had prepared during the investigation of the case. The same was annexed with the complaint in original. Therefore, putting exhibits marks on these documents by recalling the said witness for his re-examination was necessary for the just decision of the case. Otherwise, there is every possibility that the case can be thrown out on the basis of mere technicalities, without reading the documents in evidence.

¶22

For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed , and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The trial court is directed to recall and re-examine the complainant for recording his further

¶23

statement. The respondent/accused shall be given opportunity to cross-examine

¶24

the complainant.

¶25

Disposed of along with connected IA(s).

¶26

The original record of the trial court shall be returned forthwith.

¶27

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶28

SRINAGAR 18-11-2025

¶29

Showkat Khan

State of J and K through Drug Inspector v. M/S Syed Sons Enterprises through Ayed Ishrat Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of J and K through Drug Inspector v. M/S Syed Sons Enterprises through Ayed Ishrat Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammad Sirbuland Khan Vs K. Vijay Kumar and Anr. (Home Department) (RPSW/10/2015)

Ashiq Ali Khan Vs Union Territory through Economic Offences Wing Crime Branch Kashmir

Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh Vs Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh and Ors.

Zahoor Ahmad Ganie Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Housing and Urban Development)

Mairaj Ud Din Paala Vs Manzoor Coles India

Showkat Ahmad Chachoo Vs Parvaiz Gull