IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 67 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.7.2009 Nitin Sood ..Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent : Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petition can be finally disposed of, even without notice to the respondent. Rather the situation demands that the matter should be heard and decided today itself, though respondent has not been even notified about the filing of this petition. 3. Petitioner has filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Rakesh Kumar Negi. Substance of Accusation was put to the respondent on 27.11.2008 and the matter was adjourned to 21.3.2009 for production of petitioner- complainant’s evidence. Ten days time was given to the complainant to take steps for summoning his witnesses. It appears that no steps were taken for summoning the witnesses for 21.3.2009. Respondent- Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… accused was also not present on that date. Case was adjourned to 4.6.2009 for producing the witnesses at self responsibility. On 4.6.2009, petitioner-complainant got his own statement recorded as witness and the case was adjourned to 1.7.2009. The petitioner was given last opportunity to produce his evidence at self responsibility, failing which his evidence was to be closed. Today it is 1.7.2009 and the matter is supposed to be taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses, who are to be examined, are official witnesses and that the petitioner cannot produce them at self responsibility and, therefore, this Court’s indulgence is required for affording at least one more opportunity to the complainant, to take steps for summoning the official witnesses. 5. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, as also the fact that only one opportunity had been granted to the petitioner-complainant, to summon the witnesses, through the process of the Court, I feel that justice demands that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner-complainant, to take steps, like filing of PF etc., for summoning his witnesses. Accordingly, petition is allowed and it is ordered that trial Court shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner-complainant, to summon his witnesses, through the process of the Court. Petition stands disposed of. Cr. M.P No.372 of 2009 Infructuous. Dasti copy. July 1, 2009 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J