Crl. Revision No. 2716 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Crl. Revision No. 2716 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.12. 2009 Rajendra Nath Datt ........ petitioner Versus The Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Petitioner in person Mr. G S Chahal, Advocate for the Union Territory, Chandigarh Mr. C M Munjal, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. Vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2008, it was ordered that :- “The copies of challan has already been supplied to the accused if he has not got any documents out of challan papers be can make a separate application specifying the Crl. Revision No. 2716 of 2008 2 documents which he has not received. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the application is without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 20.10.2008 for supply the copy of application 14.07.2007 to the prosecution in view of the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the predecessor of this Court.” Petitioner-Rajendra Nath Datt, appearing in person, is however, aggrieved with the order dated 16.11.2007 vide which the Magistrate had directed the petitioner to supply a copy of the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to the learned APP as the APP had made a request that he has not received the same. It is argued by him that since the copy of the application had already been supplied, the Magistrate showed extra favour to the APP by asking him to supply another copy. The submission of the petitioner has nothing to do with the present revision. I find that the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner are totally unjustified and uncharitable. In fact, in the present case, the petitioner himself has also made almost the same prayer before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class requesting that although copy of the challan was given but copy of the entire challan has not been supplied to him. It was on this prayer of the petitioner that impugned order dated 04.09.2008 was passed by giving him liberty to move another application specifying the documents, which he had not received. The order dated 04.09.2008 reproduced above is fair and just. In fact, the prayer made by the petitioner has been granted by the Judicial Crl. Revision No. 2716 of 2008 3 Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 04.09.2008. The present revision petition is, therefore, innocuous and a total misuse of the process of law. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in spite of the aforesaid observations of this Court, taking a lenient view, the petitioner is permitted to get the entire copy of the challan, once again, in case he makes an application to that effect. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 11, 2009 mohan