t, 26 o/o 21.07.2010 Present: Mr. R.D. Rana, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Navin Sharma, Adv. for the State. + Crl. M.A. No.L2478l2O1O Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Rev. P. 367/t O & Crl. M.A. No. 1247911O (stavl This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397t$Ol Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the impugned order dated t4.07.2010 passed by learned ASJ be set aside whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the two applications filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had filed two applications, one under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the SHO, P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin as court witness and another application under section 91 Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to the lnvestigating officer Sl Abraham Karketa to place on record the call detail of the mobile phone of witness. Both these applications were rejected by learned trial Court. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court vide order dated 14.7.20L0 has stated that Inspector Sehdev Singh then SHO, P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin was listed J rtt Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified as one of the prosecution witness by the prosecution but they have gave up this witnesses and he was not examined. Learned trial Court further stated that the petitioner is at liberty to call the said witness in his defence if he so desired. lt is further stated by learned trial Court in the order that PW-12, Sl Abraham Karketa was examined in the Court and was also cross examined in which he has stated that he has already placed on record material documents collected by him at the time of investigation along with challan in the Court. ff This case is of the year 2005 and the petitioner has moved these O two applications before the learned trial Court when the case is fixed for recording of statement of the accused person. lt appears that the petitioner has moved these two applications only to delay the trial of the case. ln view of above facts, there is no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed. al, S.L.BHAYANA,J JULY 2L,?OLO Kb