Crl. Rev. no. 1161 of 1999(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. no. 1161 of 1999(O&M) Decided on : 16-08-2011 Chamkaur Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab Ms. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for respondent no.2 to 6 MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talwandi Sabo dated 22.5.1999 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charges against them. During the course of trial which the respondents faced pursuant to the registration of FIR no. 30 dated 11.5.1997 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Maur. The prosecution failed to conclude its evidence. A grievance has been made that on 20.5.1999 the Court recorded the following order:- “One Jit Singh, PW is present, but is given up by Ld. APP being won over. No other PW is present despite last opportunity was granted to the prosecution. Ld. APP for the State made request for adjournment. Therefore, prosecution evidence closed by order of this Court. Now case is adjourned Crl. Rev. no. 1161 of 1999(O&M) to 22.5.1999 for recording statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.” With reference to the order Annexure P-1 which shows that one Chamkaur Singh who was the injured witness had been served, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that aforesaid order of 20.5.1999 is silent regarding the presence of Chamkaur Singh and therefore, it should be inferred that Chamkaur Singh was present but was not examined. He further made a reference to the application moved by Mukhtiar Singh, ASI on the same dated i.e. 20.5.1999 requesting for an adjournment as he fell ill on 10.5.1999 and was advised rest upto 21.5.1999. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are mis-placed. The fact that a witness has been served does not imply that he was present on the said date specially when the Court records speaks to the contrary. The Court categorically noted that only one Jeet Singh was present who was given up by prosecution as being won over and no other prosecution witness was present. In this view of the matter, learned Trial Court recorded acquittal of the respondents by noticing that neither complainant nor investigating officer nor any other material witness has been examined in order to prove the case, which findings cannot be faulted with. There is no other material to the contrary and no plausible argument being propagated before this Court. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this Court in the exercise of its revisional powers cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner as the same is without any merit. Hence, dismissed. August 16, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge