Crl.Revision No.1814 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.1814 of 2005 Date of Decision: 29.07.2011 Paramjit Kaur Khalra ...Petitoner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar Mittal. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.Jindal. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.J.S.Mahendiratta, Advocate, for the respondent No.3. -- A.N.Jindal, J . This criminal revision petition has been preferred by Smt. Paramjit Kaur Khalra, complainant, against the order of discharge dated 27.05.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala against the accused, in Sessions Case No.49 of 1998, RC No.14(S)/95 Delhi, under Sections 374/302/201 read with section Crl.Revision No.1814 of 2005 2 120-B IPC. Finding no evidence against accused/respondent No.3, the court dispensed with the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) and acquitted him. Actually, a case No.RC-14(S)95-S LB-1/CBI/Delhi was registered against nine accused including Rachhpal Singh, respondent No.3. On trial, the Police submitted the charge-report against eight accused. The only allegation against respondent No.3 was that on 24.10.1995 the deceased was taken in Maruti Gyspy from Police Station Kang to Police Station Harike by him and Amarjit Singh of CBI but PW Kikkar Singh did not utter a word to prove the aforesaid allegation. The remaining entire evidence also did not indicate his complicity in the commission of the crime. As such finding no incriminating evidence against respondent No.3, his statement under section 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with and he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 401 of the Code, in criminal revision. Section 232 of the Code reads as under:- “232. Acquittal.-- If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of Crl.Revision No.1814 of 2005 3 acquittal.” Thus, Section 232 of the Code envisages that if no incriminating circumstances against him are found in the prosecution evidence to be put to him in his statement under section 313 of the Code then the accused would be acquitted. It has also been observed in the case of Hanif Banomiya Shikalkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1981 Crl.L.J.1622, that the object of Section 232 of the Code is to expedite conclusion of trial and at the same time to avoid unnecessary harassment to the accused by calling upon him to adduce evidence or to avoid the wastage of public time when there is no evidence at all. Since the trial in the aforesaid case in which respondent No.3 was acquitted has already been concluded and the appeal has also been dismissed on 8.10.2007 by this Court. Now the matter is pending in Special Leave to appeal before the Apex Court. Now petitioner cannot come to contend at this stage that the order of acquittal was not valid. No merit. Dismissed. (Satish Kumar Mittal) (A.N.Jindal) Judge Judge 29.07.2011 rp