IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1067 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 07, 2010 Jai Narain .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against Order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Jind whereby application filed by the complainant for bringing additional evidence has been allowed. Learned counsel contends that the Court below has not recorded any finding that the evidence sought to be brought on record is essential for just decision of the case. Learned counsel further states that it is only to fill up the lacuna. I have considered the contentions Crl. Revision No.1067 of 2010 [2] of learned counsel. It has been recorded in Para 5 of the impugned order that attested copy of the certificate indicating the complainant to be a member of scheduled caste was already on the file. It is only due to inadvertence that said certificate could not be exhibited by the complainant. Considering the nature of evidence in the context of claim of the complainant, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Surely the certificate indicating the complainant as a member of scheduled caste, would be relevant for the just decision of the case. No ground for interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 07, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?