CRR No. 907 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 907 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.04.2010 Shri Krishan Lal ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Sura, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent- State Mr. H N Mehtani, Advocate for the complainant-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. This is a petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby the evidence of the prosecution has been closed. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner is the complainant in a cross version case titled as State v. Ishan Singh etc. bearing FIR No. 307 dated 29.11.2001. The case was fixed for defence evidence. Since, PW- Dr. Abhinav was not examined by the Public Prosecutor for the State to prove CRR No. 907 of 2010 2 the medico legal report of the complainant side, an application was moved by the prosecution in this case subsequently for summoning the aforesaid witness-Dr. Abhinav. The said application was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2010. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 20.02.2010, the summons issued to Dr. Abhinav came back with the report that he is not currently posted in the Government Hospital, Karnal. He was transferred. The trial Court closed the prosecution evidence on the ground that since one opportunity had already granted to the prosecution to get PW-Dr. Abhinav examined vide order dated 08.02.2010, no further opportunity could be granted. Hence, the present revision petition. The same has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 stating that in as much as 31 opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead the evidence and another opportunity was also granted vide order dated 08.10.2010. In spite of the same, the prosecution has failed to examine the witness. Thus, no further opportunity should be granted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the non-examining of prosecution witness Dr. Abhinav is neither intentional nor due to any fault on the part of the petitioner/complainant. In fact, PW- Dr. Abhinav could not be served on the address provided as he already stood transferred to some other place of service. Whereas, the impugned order was passed on the ground that since already one opportunity was granted vide order dated 08.02.10, no other opportunity can be given. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that the course of CRR No. 907 of 2010 3 justice should not suffer. Truth should be established and prejudice should not be caused to any party. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine, recall/summon PW-Dr. Abhinav. Accordingly one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to examine the aforesaid prosecution witness subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed in the above terms and the order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal is accordingly set aside. However, it is clarified that no further opportunity shall be granted to examine the prosecution witness. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 21.04.2010 mohan