Crl. Revision No.217 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.217 of 2007 Date of decision : 03.03.2010 K.K. Jerath .... Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) This Court on February 26, 2010, had passed the following order:- “In the present case, charge was framed against the petitioner on 22nd August, 2006. The petitioner had impugned the order framing charge and has asserted that from the entire prosecution case, no offence is made out, for which the petitioner can be tried. The present revision petition was preferred on 27th November, 2006. This Court had issued notice on 19th March, 2007. No stay was granted. During the pendency of proceedings, trial has made headway and about 14 witnesses have been examined. Once the trial has proceeded, it is a well settled maxim that the same has to culminate in conviction or acquittal of the accused. Furthermore, 14 witnesses may have improved the prosecution case and their testimony is not before this Court. The judicial propriety demands that Crl. Revision No.217 of 2007 -2- once the trial Court is seized of the matter, this Court should not cause interference by invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. The view formulated and noted above, counsel states, can be dislodged in view of the judicial pronouncements on this aspect. He prays for an adjournment to persuade this Court to formulate a contrary view. On the request of Mr. Deepak Sibal, adjourned to 3rd March, 2010.” In a connected petition, viz. Crl. Revision No.2564 of 2006 titled as 'A.K. Gupta vs. UT, Chandigarh' this Court had considered, in the order of even date, the ambit of conspiracy falling under Section 120B IPC. This Court also considered scope of Section 219 Cr.P.C. Sh. Deepak Sibal, Advocate has advanced various arguments touching the merits of the case. During the course of the arguments, Sh. Deepak Sibal, Advocate has very fairly stated that it will be in the interest of the petitioner if all these arguments are allowed to be raised at an appropriate stage before the trial Court. In view of this, without commenting on the arguments raised, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to pray for amendment or alteration of the charge at appropriate stage before the trial Court. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 03-03-2010 JUDGE manju