Criminal Misc.No.M-330 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-330 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Surjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Mandeep S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. Mr.GPS Bal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Krishan Lal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.49761-62 of 2011 : Applications are allowed, as prayed for. Main Case : Challenge is to the order dated November 04th, 2010 (Annexure P1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, against the order dated March 04th, 2010 (Annexure P2), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby, evidence of the prosecution was closed. The evidence of the prosecution was closed on the ground that prosecution had already availed number of opportunities to produce Mr.L.K.Yadav, Senior Superintendent of Police as a witness to prove the existence of an agreement dated March 04, 1999. On the other hand, the trial was adjourned for examining the remaining witnesses of the prosecution. The evidence was closed only for the reason that sufficient number of opportunities were granted to the prosecution to lead evidence regarding the existence or loss of the agreement. The sole object of declining request for adjournment for leading evidence or any other substantial cause is to expedite the Criminal Misc.No.M-330 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] disposal. If on one hand, a party is denied such an opportunity and simultaneously adjournment is granted the very purpose gets frustrated. Closure of evidence is not a ritual nor it is aimed at penalizing a party. The orders under challenge are contumacious and reflect non-application of judicial mind. Thus, the petition is allowed and the orders under challenge, are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded one opportunity to examine his witness on the date, already fixed before the trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. September 15, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE