Criminal Misc. No. M-29416 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 29416 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Dharminder Shastri .. Petitioner v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. One of the accused is before this Court challenging the order dated 23.9.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the revision filed by the complainant was accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to examine additional prosecution witnesses was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial in the case is pending for the last more than eight years as the FIR was registered on 15.1.2002. At the fag end thereof, application was filed by the prosecution, as asked for by the complainant, for summoning of two additional witnesses, the statements whereof are not at all relevant. The object is only to delay the proceedings so that agony of the accused in the FIR continues. The case is one of 200 old cases in the court, which are required to be disposed of early in terms of the directions of this Court. He further submitted that against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, revision filed by the complainant was not maintainable and it is only the prosecution which could file the same. The complainant had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. It was further argued that even otherwise the order having been passed by the learned Magistrate on an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., being interim in nature, revision before the learned Sessions Court was Criminal Misc. No. M-29416 of 2009 [2] not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no intention of the respondents to delay the proceedings. They will lead the evidence of the newly summoned witnesses at the very first instance. As far as the relevance of evidence to be led by the prosecution is concerned, the weight thereof is to be considered by the Court at the time of final determination. Merely because at this stage in the opinion of the accused their evidence is not relevant, the learned court below could not refuse the summoning of the witnesses. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K. Pandurangan v. S. S. R. Velusamy and another, AIR 2003 SC 3318, it was submitted that the revision even filed by the complainant is maintainable considering the fact that the court could even suo-motu exercise the power of revision and examine the record of any case after summoning thereof. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability of the petition is concerned, in my opinion, answer thereof is available in K. Pandurangan's case (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under: “So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court has suo motu power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard, we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1976 SC 2205.” It cannot be disputed that under Section 397 Cr.P.C. even the Court of Session can exercise suo-motu power of revision. Accordingly, the contention that the complainant could not file the revision is rejected being misconceived. As far as the argument regarding intention of the prosecution to delay the proceedings is concerned, even that also, in my opinion,deserves to be rejected for the reason that this Court in Samadhan-2009 had identified 200 oldest civil and criminal cases in each court and endeavour is being made to dispose of the same Criminal Misc. No. M-29416 of 2009 [3] upto 31.12.2009 and as per the periodical review of the scheme, the cases are being disposed of and admittedly the present case, being one of them, is being taken up by the court concerned and efforts are being made to dispose of by the end of year 2009. The argument regarding relevance of the evidence to be led by the prosecution by summoning the two additional witnesses cannot be considered at this stage. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.11.2009 mk