IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-28384 of 2008 Date of decision: 6th March, 2009 Sandeep Sood … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 03.11.2008, a Coordinate Bench had passed the following order: “The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges order dated 22.07.2008, Annexure P-10 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana and order Annexure P-11, dated 09.09.2008. It is brought out that FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant. Machines were taken on Superdari by the petitioner. During the course of trial, the machines were required to be produced in Court which was done on 11.12.2001 and 07.02.2002. The machines have been exhibited as Exhibits P-1 to P-7. They were also inspected by accused-respondent and the counsel. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to produce the machines vide order dated 22.07.2008, however, the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-28384 of 2008 had no notice of the said order. Subsequently, the superdari had been cancelled vide order dated 09.09.2008. Learned counsel contends that the orders are illegal in so much as firstly there was no requirement of directing the machines to be produced again and secondly because the petitioner had no notice. Notice of motion for 17.12.2008. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. The trial, however, may go on.” Counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 has stated that when machines were produced and were exhibited, an objection was raised that the machines produced were not the machines, which were released on superdari. On the application, order was passed that petitioner should produce the machines. Contention of the petitioner is that he was not aware of such order, therefore subsequently, order of superdari had been cancelled. It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that to the application for production of the machines, reply was filed by the petitioner, therefore, he cannot say that he had no knowledge. After hearing counsel for the parties, it has emerged that machines, which were released on superdari, are very heavy machines. They will cause traffic hazard and inconvenience to the traffic, if they are to be again produced in the Court. It has been urged that heavy expenses are to be incurred for labour, freight and carriage of the machines and on their loading and unloading. It has been further submitted that number of production days will be lost in this process, as the machines are to be assembled and reassembled. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-28384 of 2008 In view of this, it is ordered that a Local Commissioner, along with a Videographer, can visit the premises, where videography of the machines will be carried and same be kept on the record of the Court and the objections raised by the respondent can be decided, whether the machines are the same, which were released on superdari or they have been replaced. The trial Court shall appoint a Local Commissioner, who will engage a Videographer. Local Commissioner shall inspect the premises, along with the Videographer in the presence of counsel for the parties. The fee of the Local Commissioner and charges of videography shall be paid by the accused respondents. Since the machines, due to wear and tear, use and rust, may become redundant, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months after receipt of certified copy of this order. After the report of the Local Commissioner and the videography, trial Court will be at liberty to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 6, 2009 rps 3