IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2410 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Sushil Kumar Sharma. ....... Petitioner through Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate. Versus Dr. Prem Nath and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri R.S.Madan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that their only endeavour is to get the document,i.e., General Power of Attorney, tested from a recognised government laboratory in order to enhance the case of the petitioner. He contended with reference to order dated 3.11.2007 that the petitioner had earlier made this prayer and his option to get the document examined from Finger Print Bureau, Madhuban was kept open, but by virtue of the impugned order, the said prayer has been declined which has caused a serious prejudice to him. C.R. No.2410 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 contended that in the criminal case registered pursuant to F.I.R.No.115 of 1998 at Police Station, Dabri, this very document was got tested from government laboratory and the experts who had done so, were examined in the process and the petitioner exercised his right to cross- examine them. In this eventuality, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the document has already been tested and scrutinised by the Finger Print Bureau and consequently, no purpose will be served by getting the same examined afresh except to delay the proceedings. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 deserve to be accepted. Admittedly, the document has already been examined by the government experts and, therefore, it will be futile to carry out this exercise once again. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Moreover, the report of the experts, as also their testimony is on record of the present case. Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant revision has no merit and is,accordingly, dismissed. October 27,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge