IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.37872 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Rajinder Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner intends to lead some secondary evidence in regard to two resolutions. As per the own saying of the petitioner, originals of these resolutions were with the police. While making prayer for leading secondary evidence in regard to these resolutions, the petitioner had not accounted for the original documents and did not take appropriate action to move an application for directing the person in possession of originals to produce these before the court. Only when the petitioner is able to account for the original documents, he would become entitled to lead secondary evidence. In my view, no proper basis were laid to lead these resolutions by way of secondary evidence as no notice was given to the police to produce the same. The petitioner may, if so advised, adopt a proper course to lead secondary evidence. This order is passed for disposing of the present petition. Whether the petitioner has right on merits to lead these documents in the evidence would be considered by the Court as the Criminal Misc.-M No.37872 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : Court had earlier viewed that this was never pleaded by the petitioner while cross-examining the police officer and so also while making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The question whether this will not be permissible at this stage would accordingly be decided by the court in case the petitioner makes any fresh approach. The petition is accordingly disposed of. December 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE