Crl. Revn. No.3392 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.3392 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010 Dilbagh Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Pritam Kaur ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Y.M. Bhagirath, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 66947 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Revn. No. 3392 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of Dilbagh Singh against order dated 30.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court, Amritsar vide which an application for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inspite of best efforts, the petitioner could not lead evidence as the witnesses are police officials and it is the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was granted to lead evidence. Learned counsel further contends that the statement of those police officials is necessary for the just decision of the case and one more opportunity may be granted to record statements of these witnesses. Crl. Revn. No.3392 of 2010 (O&M) (2) I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file. As per impugned order, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.4.2006 and thereafter case was adjourned on various dates by the trial Court for defence evidence and ultimately vide order dated 24.8.2006, defence evidence was closed by order of the Court. Against the aforesaid order, revision was filed, which was allowed and trial Court was directed to summon DWs but inspite of that even after giving more than 20 opportunities including the last one, the petitioner could not conclude the defence evidence. It was also observed in the impugned order that inspite of giving sufficient period i.e. w.e.f. 24.10.2006 to 25.9.2007, the petitioner could not produce the witnesses and moreover this application has been filed after much delay just to delay the disposal of the appeal. There is nothing in the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 22, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No