Criminal Misc. No. 9165 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 9165 of 2008 Date of decision : 16.9.2008 Bhagirath Lal .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no.1-State. Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. In the course of the petition, the grievance of the petitioner (complainant in the prosecution presentation) is that the prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed by the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure P-5), on an invalid premise. I have heard Mrs. Manjari Nehru, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. R.S.Bains, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and carefully gone through the record. In the course of the impugned order, it was noticed that last opportunity had been granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. That observation is factually incorrect. It was on Criminal Misc. No. 9165 of 2008 -2- **** 11.12.2007 that the matter had been adjourned to 27.2.2008. Annexure P-4 is the copy of the order dated 11.12.2007. There is nothing in that order to indicate that the prosecution was being afforded last opportunity for concluding its evidence. Further, it is apparent from Annexure P-4 that PW-2 Gurdeep Singh did not turn up inspite of having bound down on the preceding date of hearing. They were ordered to be summoned through coercive process i.e. bailable warrants. Learned Trial Court did not, however, indicate the amount in which the warrants were to be bailable. The Court further noticed that the bailable warrants of Jiwan Kumar and Satpal PWs had not been received, served or unserved. It ordered that bailable warrants shall be issued afresh against them and that remaining PWs shall also be summoned for 27.2.2008. The impugned order does not indicate whether the coercive processes issued to secure the presence of Gurdeep Singh, Jiwan Kumar and Satpal had been received executed or otherwise or not That order also does not indicate whether summonses to secure the presence of other left out witnesses had been, at all, issued for 27.2.2008 or not. The adoption of such an approach cannot be accepted by law. Thus, the prosecution evidence proved to have been closed by the learned Trial court without recording appropriate reasoning. Law would envision an absolutely transparent handling of the criminal proceedings. It is required of the Court to pointedly indicate the identity of the witnesses who are ordered to be summoned for the next date of hearing. Further, it should be Criminal Misc. No. 9165 of 2008 -3- **** pointedly noticed on the following date whether the processes issued in respect of those witnesses have been received executed or not. The orders to be passed by the Court in respect of each witness have to be compulsively specific. Further more, if a witness stands served for appearance before the Court on a particular date and does not appear, it is responsibility of the Court to ensure that appropriate process in the context is issued and is executed. The prosecution has to be notified that the matter is being adjourned to a particular date which would be the last opportunity for the production of its evidence. In the absence of such a notification, it would be illegal, and inequitable as well, to order the closure of the prosecution presentation which may, in a large number of cases, amount to exoneration of the accused for want of evidence. The Court must be vary of such lackadaisical approach which (approach) would result in defeating the interest of justice. The present prosecution against respondent no.2- accused under Section 182 IPC had been lodged by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. If the accused got away on merits, the law would not have a grievance, however, if the prosecution loses case by closure of the prosecution presentation in a such like manner, as was done vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), the interest of justice would suffer. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) directing the closure of the prosecution evidence is set aside. The learned Trial Magistrate shall Criminal Misc. No. 9165 of 2008 -4- **** proceed to adjourn the matter for recording of the prosecution evidence and proceed into the matter in accordance with law. Though the observation made by this Court are reiteration of the obvious, it cannot be denied that the point adjudicated upon affects the administration of justice. In that view of things, it would be appropriate to circulate the judgment to the Courts under the administrative control of the High Court. Disposed of accordingly. September 16, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE