Crl. Rev. No.655 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.655 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Rajwinder Sabharwal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition, wherein order dated 17th January, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has been impugned, whereby application of the petitioner to lead additional evidence has been declined. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court (Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura) on 26th February, 2004 on the allegations that he had dishonestly misappropriated the stock entrusted to him on behalf of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) while he was posted as Inspector PUNSUP. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application for leading additional evidence. The said application was declined on the Crl. Rev. No.655 of 2009 2 ground that the documents sought to be relied upon were well within the knowledge of the petitioner even during the pendency of the trial, but he failed to produce the same. This apart, the petitioner failed to mention the name and designation of the witnesses, who were to produce the documents in question. On these grounds, the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that documents were necessary to be produced to arrive at a just conclusion in the case. He has relied upon judgment of this court rendered as Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 970, in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer. He has submitted that the application has been filed only with a view to delay the case. According to him, the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are reproduced in the impugned judgment, as under:- “A. Memo No.QC(41)-87/24407 dated 18.6.1987 issued by the Head Office of PUNSUP regarding quality cuts. B. H.O. Letter No.AMP-3/28405-16 dated 27.7.88 instruction regarding recovery. C. Copy of P.R. Manual Part-II regarding percentage of Crl. Rev. No.655 of 2009 3 normal shortage. D. Report of checking of stocks in dispute by vigilance department dated 29.6.86. E. Chronic disease certified in respect of Bhola Rani Sabharwal wife of Rajwinder Sabharwal (appellant) issued by PGI, Chandigarh. F. Prescription slip issued by Escorts Heard Institute in respect of Rajwinder Sabharwal regarding heart disease. G. Discharge slip issued by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala in respect of Rajwinder Sabharwal regarding heart disease. H. Out patient ticket in respect of Rajwinder Sabharwal issued by PGI, Chandigarh.” The documents 'A to C' are merely memo/instructions/ copy of manual respectively which the petitioner can refer to even at the stage of arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any relevance of the documents from 'D to H' for arriving at a just decision of the case. It appears, the trial of the case remained pending before the court of Magistrate for a decade i.e. from 1994 to 2004. Learned counsel has not been able to show any reason why these documents were not produced before the trial court within the span of ten years for which the trial remained pending. This apart, the petitioner has not cited a single witness, who would prove the documents sought to be produced at this stage. He has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. In my considered view, the judgment in Zile Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the court came to a definite conclusion Crl. Rev. No.655 of 2009 4 that documents, sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, were essential for just decision of the case. However, the same is not the situation in the instant case. I am, thus, of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 20, 2009 'rajpal'