IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26940 of 2011. Date of Decision : 13.9.2011. Deepak ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated May 28th, 2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak affirming the order dated February 3rd, 2011 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham whereby evidence of the prosecution was closed. 2. Trial Magistrate closed the evidence of the prosecution only on the short ground that one opportunity was granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence but no witness was present. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Magistrate for the reason that witness Dr. Vinay Kumar Deswal could not be served and on account of that Magistrate was justified in closing the evidence of the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after closing of the evidence, prosecution moved another application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine Dr. Virender Singh and the said application was allowed by order dated July 16th, 2011 (Annexure P-6). The case was adjourned for recording evidence of the prosecution. It has been also urged by learned counsel that summons (Annexure P-3) were issued to Dr. Vinay Kumar Deswal but vide report dated February 1st, 2011, it was reported that he was not posted at Community Health Centre, Chiri and was transferred to PGIMS Rohtak. Since Dr. Vinay Kumar Crl. Misc. No. M-26940 of 2011 (2) Deswal was not served upon so, it cannot be said that prosecution did not make efforts to examine the witness. When the case is already fixed for evidence of the prosecution for September 15th, 2011 then there was no point for the trial Judge to close the evidence and adjourn the case for the same purpose and not allow the prosecution to examine Dr. Vinay Kumar Deswal. The trial Magistrate could very well issue fresh summons to Dr. Vinay Kuamr Deswal and give an opportunity to the prosecution to examine him. The object of declining request for adjournment for leading evidence or any substantial cause is to expedite the disposal. if on one hand, prosecution is denied such an opportunity and simultaneously adjournment is granted, the very purpose gets frustrated. Closure of evidence is not ritual nor it is aimed at penalizing a party. 4. For the reasons given here-in-above, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside. Consequently, the prosecution is accorded an opportunity to examine the witnesses, of course, the process is to be issued by the Court. 5. Disposed of. 13.9.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE