Crl. R No. 1395 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R No. 1395 of 2010 Date of decision : January31, 2011 Subrata Day, ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd. DAG Punjab for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) On May 25, 2010, the following order was passed :- “ This is a revision petition, challenging the order dated 12.3.2010, vide which the application, filed by the petitioner, for the recall of the Doctor, for further cross- examination, was dismissed, by the trial Court. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner received injuries in the occurrence but his medico-legal report was not relied upon by the prosecution and, therefore, he could not cross-examine the Doctor properly. He has further submitted that the Court below did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof the application was Crl. R No. 1395 of 2010 ::2:: dismissed. He has further submitted that the order impugned is illegal and perverse. Notice of motion for 2.7.2010.” Counsel for the respondent has argued that the record, which was sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, is a part of the judicial file. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion harder prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case Dr. C.K.Pathania is not recalled and then to the prosecution in case he is recalled. It is stated that the matter is now fixed for 12.2.2011. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to allow this revision petition. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and a direction is issued that Dr. C.K.Pathania (PW11) be recalled for further cross-examination, if possible on 12.2.2011, and only after the cross- examination the petitioner would be enjoined to lead his defence evidence. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 31, 2011. JUDGE `kk'