Crl.Misc No M- 6153 of 2011 Jiwan Kumar v. Bachan Lal and others Present: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** ORDER The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside impugned order dated 21.1.2011 passed by JMIC, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the evidence of petitioner- complainant has been closed in the Complaint case titled “Jiwan Kumar v. Bachan Lal etc” and for issuance of direction to the trial Court to issue process in securing the presence of witness Amar Nath in respect of whom the Court had already issued bailable warrants on 8th October, 2010 which remained non-complied. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pre-charge evidence was recorded on 24th April, 2009, process fee and diet money was deposited and the witness to be summoned was served but he was not appearing despite service. It has wrongly been mentioned that the petitioner-complainant was given more than 21 opportunities and in-spite of last opportunity, the said witness could not be examined. Since the petitioner was not at fault as the bailable warrant which was issued could not be implemented, the evidence could not be closed. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order vide which the evidence has been closed. Although the complaint is of the year 2004 but it is clear Crl.Misc No M- 6153 of 2011 [2] from the zimni orders which are on record that on 10th December, 2010 CW Nirmal Singh was present and was examined. No other witness was present on that day. Similarly, earlier also on 19th October, 2010, said Nirmal Singh was not examined on account of the fact that the Court's time was over. CW Amar Nath could not be examined because of no fault of the petitioner and the delay was not on his part, although bailable warrant was issued for securing the presence of CW Amar Nath. No report was submitted to the trial Court for issuing and compliance of order of bailable warrant. On the next date of hearing neither bailable warrants were issued nor any compliance report was made and evidence was closed without recording any finding in this regard. In view of the submission as mentioned above, the impugned order dated 21.1.2011 is set aside and petitioner- complainant is granted one more opportunity to examine said witness Amar Nath subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs which shall be deposited by the petitioner-complainant before the Punjab Legal Services Authority. The trial Court shall make efforts to secure the presence of Amar Nath and record his statement. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) February 25, 2011 JUDGE raghav