IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-24673 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.9.2011 Lt.Col.Gian Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.J.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order dated 18.5.2011. He is facing accusations in a case registered vide FIR No.87 dated 12.7.1995 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Mohali. During the course of trial he moved an application seeking permission of the Court to adduce secondary evidence. The learned trial Court declined the prayer by noticing that on a prior occasion the appellate court vide its order dated 12.2.2010 had remanded the matter to the learned trial Court whereafter several opportunities were given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses. Eventually the evidence of the prosecution was recorded and the same was closed by virtue of order dated 2.2.2011. The statement of the accused i.e. the petitioner was also recorded and three witnesses were examined thereafter. One application was moved Crl.Misc.No.M-24673 of 2011 (O&M) -2- by the petitioner for permission to examine an expert witness which was allowed by the learned trial Court on 22.3.2011. After examining the expert the instant application has been moved with an ostensible view to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. The petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution and thus the trial Court observed that the petitioner merely wanted to delay the proceedings and thus declined the prayer. Impugning the order learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is necessary to adduce secondary evidence as one of the defence witnesses Nihal Singh admitted to the forgery and likewise the Investigating Officer, who had also admitted to the forgery, had died. He thus contended that in view of the categoric admission of the aforesaid witnesses, it was imperative to lead secondary evidence. I have considered the matter after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the case reveal that the matter was remanded back by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 12.2.2010 with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the case afresh after amending the chargesheet in view of what had been stated by the Court and to take further proceedings as per law. In the impugned order it has been noticed that the evidence of the prosecution had been concluded. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to what is the purpose of adducing secondary evidence and as to whether the observations made by the learned trial Court while referring to the piecemeal applications being moved by the petitioner was an attempt to delay the proceedings were unjustified or Crl.Misc.No.M-24673 of 2011 (O&M) -3- not. No zimni orders have been placed on record and neither has any substantive material been shown which could show as to what is the relevance of the applications moved by the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that if an application of the kind which has been moved by the petitioner does not disclose the elementary contents to show satisfaction of the ingredients of the provisions of law governing the leading of secondary evidence as also its consequent relevance to the controversy which prevents the Court from examining as to whether such material is essential for proper adjudication of the case or not, then this by itself is sufficient to discard an application. There is ample justification for the Court to justify such denial if the occasion to determine whether the material sought to be adduced by a person is necessary for the adjudication of the case or not is withheld from it. Even before this Court no such material has been placed on record and except for agitating an issue on facts that there is an admission made by one of the witnesses and by the Investigating Officer, who is stated to have died, there is no material from which it could be inferred that the observations of the learned trial Court are unwarranted or contrary to the record. There are only bald assertions in some of the paragraphs with no supportive material. So much so learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to state as to when the Investigating officer died indicating the shortness of the content and the vagueness of the plea. Crl.Misc.No.M-24673 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 5.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss