Crl. Rev. No.3407 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3407 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.12.2010 Manpreet @ Montu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which, the opportunity to examine the additional witnesses was granted. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by allowing the application, his defence shall stand demolished. As such, the same cannot be permitted. Heard. In order to understand the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to notice the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner in the grounds of revision petition :- “Upon discovery of the dead body of deceased Jasvinder Singh (30) on 12.05.2008 in the area of Police Station, Kundli, District Sonepat, present petitioner, Montu @ Manpreet Singh was arrested on 17.05.2008 as an accused on the allegation that on 11.05.2008, said Jasvinder Singh along with accused Montu @ Manpreet Singh went Rewari in connection Crl. Rev. No.3407 of 2010 2 with some business transaction as both of them used to supply material to defence department. He did not return to his home on that day and subsequently his dead body was recovered on the next day. The petitioner had been arrayed as an accused on the ground that on 11.05.2008 at about 4.19 p.m., wife of the deceased made a telephonic call to the deceased on his mobile phone upon which, he replied that he was going to Rewari along with Montu @ Manpreet in connection with the business. This raised suspicion that Jasvinder Singh might have been killed by Montu @ Manpreet Singh as there was a business transaction of approximately a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- between the accused and the deceased Jasvinder Singh.” Therefore, the allegations are serious. The call details per se reflect the cell/B.T.S. identification code, given by the mobile service provider to their respective towers for the calls made from the mobile phone of the deceased, as well as, of the accused but in the said call details exact physical local of the towers is not mentioned. The location of towers is very material in this case as the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, a prayer was made to summon the Nodal Officer of the concerned Mobile Subscriber. The prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. This is a blind murder. Therefore, it would be appropriate if one more opportunity is granted to examine the additional witness in order to arrive at the truth. Accordingly, no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet