Criminal Misc. No. M-11155 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.Nos.24043 & 62333 of 2011 in Criminal Misc. No. M-11155 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Dr.Sawinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Criminal Misc.Nos.24043 & 62333 of 2011 : Both the applications are dismissed as withdrawn. Main Case : Challenge in this petition is to the order dated April 08 th, 2011 (Annexure P5) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby, the application filed by the prosecution to examine Swarn Singh in place of Manjit Singh, who was cited as a prosecution witness, was allowed. 2. First Information Report No.169 dated November 24 th, 2011 under Sections 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') was registered in Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar with regard to a matrimonial dispute. Manjit Singh was cited as a prosecution witness to prove a few bills, by which, complainant wife – respondent No.2 had purchased electronic appliances from his shop. The name of the shop of Manjit Singh was 'Aman Electronics, Criminal Misc. No. M-11155 of 2011(O&M) [2] Tripuri Road, Patiala'. Number of opportunities were granted to the prosecution to examine Manjit Singh, but he was not available. By impugned order, the trial Court allowed Swarn Singh to be examined in his place, who allegedly was an employee of Manjit Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that Swarn Singh was an employee of Manjit Singh or that the bills, which are already on the file, were issued by him. 4. On the last hearing, the State was directed to verify, as to whether the shop of Manjit Singh was shut down or he is available to depose before the trial Court. Reply by State has been filed mentioning that the shop in question had been closed for the last 5/6 years and Manjit Singh is not available, because his whereabouts are not known. 5. On being questioned as to whether there is any evidence to show that the bills were issued by Swarn Singh, counsel for the complainant has answered in negative. 6. In view of this, there appears to be no justification in allowing the prosecution to lead secondary evidence, particularly, when the person, to whom the prosecution intends to examine cannot prima facie prove the documents relied upon by the prosecution. 7. Hence, the petition is accepted. Order, under challenge, is set aside. It is recorded for the sake of clarity that the observations in this order are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall be at liberty to take note of the bills filed by the prosecution, if the law permits. November 18, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE