Crl.Rev.No. 944 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 944 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.8.2011 Paramjit Kaur and another ......Petitioners Versus Satish Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 5.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the prosecution evidence was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had made every effort to effect service on the witnesses. Only one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to enable them to examine PW Dr.Prabdeep Sohi at their own risk and responsibility. Crl.Rev.No. 944 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the complainants to conclude their evidence but they had failed to do so. Hence, the evidence of the complainants had been rightly closed by the trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2011, the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution as the case was amongst the oldest category. Despite numerous opportunities, the complainants had failed to conclude their evidence. The complainants, at this stage, only want to examine Dr.Prabdeep Sohi. The said witness had failed to appear despite service on 22.3.2011 and was ordered to be summoned through dasti process. The dasti process qua the said witness was received back un-served due to incorrect address. Thus, it is not a case where the complainants had not been taking effective steps to effect service on the witnesses. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even law bends before justice. Duty to do justice is paramount. In case, in the present case, the petitioners are allowed one opportunity to enable them to examine Dr.Prabdeep Sohi as a witness, the trial Court would be able to decide the case more effectively and impart justice to the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to allow one opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to examine PW Dr.Prabdeep Sohi. Crl.Rev.No. 944 of 2011 3 Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to examine Dr.Prabdeep Sohi as a witness at their own risk and responsibility. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2011 anita