IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.2991 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: November 10, 2010 Satish Kumar and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the petitioner s .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a revision petition wherein order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 20.10.2010 whereby one last opportunity was granted to prosecution to conclude its evidence, has been impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that trial of the case has been pending since 2005 and prosecution got numerous opportunities to lead its evidence. According to him, evidence of the prosecution was closed by order dated 5.8.2010. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri who allowed the same and granted one more opportunity to the prosecution to conclude its entire evidence. He has further submitted that the order is palpably wrong as it is due to negligence of the prosecution that the trial lingered on for such a long time. Crl.Revision No.2991 of 2010 - 2 - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri shows that one more opportunity was granted to the prosecution as certain material witnesses were yet to be examined. The witnesses could not be examined before as no effective method was adopted to ensure service of witnesses. In the interest of justice, the court below found it necessary to grant another opportunity to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. I do not find any legal infirmity with the impugned order nor it has been shown as to what prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by allowing the prosecution one more opportunity to conclude its entire evidence. Under the circumstances, I do not find that it is a fit case to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction of this court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. November 10, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE