IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-12421 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 02, 2010 Karambir .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge is to Order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh vide which prosecution evidence has been closed by order of Court. It seems that the petitioner went up in revision. The revisional Court vide other impugned Order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the revision as being barred by Crl. Misc. No. M-12421 of 2009 [2] limitation. While drawing the attention of the Court towards the grounds of revision filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that the evidence is relevant and necessary for just decision of the case. Manifest injustice has been caused by closing evidence by order of Court. It has been argued that the doctors were required to be examined who are necessary and relevant in the context of charges framed. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that revision should have been filed in time in challenge to order passed by the Trial Magistrate. This having not been done, the petitioner has no case to seek indulgence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions. It seems that charges have been framed under Sections 325, 323 and 506 IPC. The witnesses to be examined are three doctors namely Dr. Rajender Gera, Dr. Gajraj Singh and Dr. Ved Pal. The petitioner was medico legally examined by Dr. Ved Pal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani. Wife of the petitioner was examined by Dr. Gajraj Singh. The petitioner was radiologically examined by Dr. Rajender Gera. The Crl. Misc. No. M-12421 of 2009 [3] said persons were cited as witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Summons were served on Dr. Rajender Gera and Dr. Gajraj Singh. Request was received from the said two witnesses that they cannot appear for the date fixed and the matter be adjourned for another date to enable them to appear. So far as Dr. Ved Pal is concerned, summons were not even issued. Considering the fact that two of the witnesses had sent request for adjournment, prosecution/ petitioner cannot be held at fault. So far as Dr. Ved Pal is concerned, summons were not issued. The relevance of evidence to be given by the witnesses in the context of charges cannot be disputed. The Magistrate, however, while passing impugned order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) has not even discussed the evidence, rather in a very innocuous order, has directed closure of evidence. It is a clear case where at the altar of expediency, cause of justice has been made to suffer causing manifest injustice. In case the Magistrate found that a witness had been summoned to appear, however the witness without just excuse neglects or refuses to attend that place, proceedings under Section 350 Cr.P.C. could have been initiated. It was imperative for the Magistrate to have considered Crl. Misc. No. M-12421 of 2009 [4] the relevance of evidence to be given by witnesses before passing impugned order, Annexure P-2. So far as, Dr. Ved Pal is concerned, summons had not been issued and this fact should have been noticed by the Trial Magistrate. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The Court of Sessions has dismissed the revision petition only on the issue of limitation. Under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court of Sessions is entrusted with suo motu power to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the revisional Court was required to consider the relevance of evidence and as to whether manifest injustice would be caused or not. This having not done, order passed by the revisional Court is rendered illegal. The petition is allowed. Order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure Crl. Misc. No. M-12421 of 2009 [5] P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh and Order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, are set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 22.2.2010. The Trial Court is directed to issue fresh summons to the witnesses and in case the conduct of the witnesses is found to be wanting, proceedings under Section 350 Cr.P.C. be initiated to procure their presence. In view of the fact that the case relates to the year 2002, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial. Copy of the order be given under signatures of the Reader of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) February 02, 2010 JUDGE Avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?