CRR No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.646 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.05.2011 Harbans Lal and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Manjeet Singh Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Record reveals that Mr. Bimaljit Singh, Advocate, Mansa, was appearing on behalf of the accused in the trial in question. On 21.2.2011, the date fixed before the trial Court, Mr. Bimaljit Singh, Advocate, was not available, therefore, accused through assisting counsel Mr. Deepinder Singh have moved an application seeking adjournment in the case stating that Mr. Bimaljit Singh, Advocate, had gone to Chandigarh for the admission of his son so case be adjourned for some other date for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Record further reveals that learned trial Court vide order dated 21.2.2011 has declined the adjournment and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Lal Chand and Nirmala Devi was closed showing to be nil by Deepinder Singh proxy counsel for Bimaljit Singh, CRR No.646 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Advocate. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, fairly stated that instead of challenging the order refusing the adjournment and recording the cross-examination 'nil' before this Court, petitioners could have moved the trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the prosecution witnesses for cross- examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to move an application before the trial Court for recalling of the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. In the opinion of this Court, if counsel appearing for the accused is not available and adjournment is sought by the proxy counsel then in all fairness opportunity should have been granted for the cross- examination by adjourning the case. Closing the cross-examination in the absence of counsel for the accused seems to be harsh and unjustified. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution witnesses are liable to be recalled for the reasons discussed hereinabove. Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. In the event of moving an application for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination, same shall be decided by the trial Court without any undue delay in the light of observations made hereinabove. (Alok Singh) Judge May 10, 2011 R.S.