Crl. Revn. No. 1108 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 1108 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 19.04.2010 Hakam Singh & Anr. ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. Nos. 19662-63 of 2010 Applications are allowed as prayed for. Crl. Revn. No. 1108 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 3.2.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, vide which, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the concerned Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangrur has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application, was filed after a gap of seven years and the same, has wrongly been allowed just to fill up the lacunae left by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at the time of presentation of challan, this witness was in the knowledge of the prosecution and now after a gap of seven years, when prosecution evidence has been closed, the application has been allowed just to prolong the trial unnecessarily and the Crl. Revn. No. 1108 of 2010 (2) same is not essential for just decision of the case. Learned counsel further submits that by allowing the application, it would prejudice the case of the petitioners. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the application as well as impugned order. The present application has been allowed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Barnala on the ground that the witness is a concerned Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar Cooperative Society, Sangrur and he is having some relevant record of the case, which is required for the just decision of the case. In this case the petitioners in connivance with the employees of the House Federation Society obtained a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs for construction of house by showing the age of their father as 55-58 years on the basis of forged ration card and by impersonating their father by getting his thumb impression whereas no such construction took place. Since this witness as well as the record of the society is necessary for just decision of the case, there is nothing in the impugned order which requires interference by this Court as the relevant record of the society is necessary for just decision of the case. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Revision is dismissed accordingly. April 19, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No