Crl. Revn. No. 2345 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2345 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 10, 2008. Hussan Lal .... Petitioner Vs. Santokh Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 375 of 2008 : Application is allowed and the Zimni Orders of the trial Magistrate are taken on record. Main Case : Hussan Lal – complainant has filed the instant revision petition assailing order dated 13.11.2007 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur whereby pre-charge evidence of petitioner-complainant, in the private criminal complaint instituted by him, has been closed by court order. On the preceding date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, prayed for adjournment to place on record Zimni Orders of the trial court to show how many opportunities were granted to the petitioner-complainant for his pre-charge evidence. However, the petitioner has now placed on record only three Zimni Orders of the trial Magistrate and has not placed all the Zimni Orders of the trial Crl. Revn. No. 2345 of 2007 (O&M) 2 court to show how many opportunities were granted to the petitioner- complainant for his pre-charge evidence. It shows his dishonest intention. Be that as it may, perusal of the Zimni Orders now placed on record shows that on 14.07.2007, the case was adjourned to 17.09.2007 granting last opportunity to the complainant for his pre-charge evidence, but inspite thereof, the complainant did not lead any evidence and the trial court still granted him indulgence by adjourning the case to 08.10.2007 and then to 13.11.2007. Thus, the petitioner even after availing of four last opportunities for his pre-charge evidence, failed to lead his remaining evidence. It would also show that even prior to 14.07.2007, the complainant must have availed of large number of opportunities for his evidence and it must be for this reason that he was granted last opportunity for his evidence on 14.07.2007 for 17.09.2007, but even thereafter, he was granted three more opportunities. It is thus evident that the petitioner himself is to be blamed for the situation in which he finds himself. There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court because there has to be some end to the number of opportunities to be granted to a party to lead evidence. Finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. January 10, 2008 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE