IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No. M-5728 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.03.2011 Rajesh Oberoi .....Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Crl. Misc. No.10444 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-5728 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Rajesh Oberoi for quashing of order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the revisional Court, i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby one opportunity has been granted to the respondent- prosecution to continue the evidence by setting aside the order dated 20.2.2010 passed by JMIC, Chandigarh vide which the evidence of the prosecution was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial since 1998 and mother of the petitioner, who is also co-accused, is old lady of more than 80 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that charges were framed on 26.9.1998 and ample opportunities were granted to the prosecution to conclude the evidence but in spite of giving 108 opportunities, no evidence was produced and statement of the Crl. Misc. No. M-5728 of 2011 (O&M) -2- accused was also to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 11.3.2010. Learned counsel further submits that one more opportunity has been granted by the revisional Court on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. Admittedly, the case is pending since long and ample opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to conclude its entire evidence. The prosecution has not concluded the evidence inspite of affording 108 opportunities and last opportunity was granted for 20.2.2010 and ultimately, the evidence was closed. Although the revisional Court allowed one more opportunity, by interfering in the well-reasoned order of the trial Court and the prosecution has been given one more opportunity. The prosecution has also been directed to conclude its entire evidence on one date. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required except to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. The trial Court is also directed not to give any further opportunity. Disposed of. March 10, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE