IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2063 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 Rakesh Mago & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & 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.R.K.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Counsel for the petitioners was required to disclose as to how many opportunities were given to the petitioners for producing their evidence before the trial Court. No information has been supplied, but the counsel orally submits that more than thirty opportunities were availed by the petitioners for producing their evidence. Counsel says that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioners and they are ready to pay the costs. Having availed thirty opportunities, the counsel cannot still claim a right to lead the additional evidence. It was for the petitioners to avail these opportunities and lead the evidence whatever they wanted to do. If the petitioners cannot produce the relevant evidence despite thirty opportunities, no case for grant of any other opportunity is made out. The Court has rightly dismissed the plea of the petitioners. Dismissed. November 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE