Criminal Misc. No.M-25905 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25905 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.11.2009 Amit Yadav ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. This petition applies for the transfer of case FIR No.23 dated 12.2.2009 under Sections 92, 120-B, 412, 216, 452, 341, 506, 323, 397, 400 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula pending in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jindal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula to any Court at Chandigarh or State of Punjab and outside the State of Haryana on averments which make fairly interesting reading. The petitioner, a master in Business Administration with a good academic record, is facing a prosecution in the above case. The case came up on 27.8.2009 for recording of the prosecution evidence. The petitioner having been detained in the Jail at Rohtak escorted by the police party reached Panchkula at 1.30 P.M. By the time he reached the Court, he found that evidence in the case had already been recorded in his absence and the witnesses had even claimed to have been identified the accused in the Court. Petitioner made a report in the context to the learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula but “it was hushed up. No action was Criminal Misc. No.M-25905 of 2009 -2- **** taken”. The grievance, averred in the course of the complaint, was that the Court and the prosecuting agency were determined to convict him and he did not expect justice from that Court. The petitioner enclosed the statements of PW-1 Vinod Kateria, PW-2 Devi Ram Kaundal and PW-3 ASI Shish Pal. In that very context, the grievance indicated was that the evidence recorded in his absence may be deleted and those witnesses may be directed to be examined afresh. It is apparent from a perusal of the statements of PW-1 Vinod Kateria, PW-2 Devi Ram Kaundal and PW-3 ASI Shish Pal that as many as three counsel had cross examined those witnesses. Mr. S.K.Sood and Mr. Samir Sethi, who represented non-petitioners-Pawan and Rohit Khasha, did not direct any cross-examination at those witnesses inspite of the fact that an opportunity of cross-examination had been afforded to them. Further, a counsel provided by the Legal Services Authority did direct reasonable lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner herein and non-petitioner accused Samir Nain. The Amicus Curiae cross- examined PW-1 Vinod Kateria and PW-2 Devi Ram Kaundal. Insofar as PW-3 ASI Shish Pal is concerned, he was cross-examined by the learned counsel representing non-petitioner accused Pawan. No cross-examination was directed by him on behalf of the petitioner accused and non-petitioner- accused Rohit Khasha. At the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel sought time to place on record affidavit of three learned counsel S/Shri S.K.Sood, Sameer Sethi and Ms. Priya Goyal in support of the averment aforementioned. However, inspite of grant of yet another adjournment, those affidavits were not placed on record. Infact, the learned counsel Criminal Misc. No.M-25905 of 2009 -3- **** appearing on behalf of the petitioners inform the Court today that learned counsel aforementioned were not inclined to file their affidavits to the above effect. There can be no dispute with the proposition that all the judicial acts are presumed to have been correctly done. If a party avers the contrary, it has to place on record atleast some semblance of material to justify the challenge. In the given circumstances of the case, the three learned counsel who were noticed in the Trial Court as having conducted cross-examination were the best circumstanced to concede or deny the averment made by the petitioner that the evidence of PW-1 Vinod Kateria, PW-2 Devi Ram Kaundal and PW-3 ASI Shish Pal had been recorded in the absence of accused (included the petitioner herein). Even the petitioner himself does not give any idea about any other material available with him to disprove the presumption of correctness attached to the judicial proceedings in the statements of PW-1 Vinod Kateria, PW-2 Devi Ram Kaundal and PW-3 ASI Shish Pal recorded on 27.8.2009. There is also no material to prove that the matter had been notified to the learned District Judge, Panchkula. The petition being denuded of merit shall stand dismissed accordingly. November 27, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE