Crl. Revision No. 3382 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 3382 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.8.2011. Manjit .......Petitioner Vs. Bhim Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 18.11.2010, whereby the pre charge evidence of the complainant was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW Dr. Subhash C. Gehlot could not be summoned as he had been transferred to Narnaul. In these circumstances, the trial court was required to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to examine the said doctor with the help of dasti summons. On 4.1.2011, following order was passed by this court:- “After arguing for some time learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing the petition as regards examination of Ajit and Jasbir is concerned since he could not justify their absence even on the sixth date fixed for pre-charge evidence. However, as Crl. Revision No. 3382 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - regards Dr. Subhash C. Gehlot, learned counsel has argued that he was duly summoned by court process but the said summons could not be served upon him since he had by then been transferred to Narnaul. Prays that one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to examine the aforesaid Dr. Gehlot and that the petitioner undertakes to produce the said doctor and the only assistance from the court which is required is that of issuance of dasti summons. In my opinion this limited prayer of the petitioner cannot be rejected out of hand. However, it cannot also be lost sight of that the respondents have had to bear the brunt of the delay caused by the petitioner in proving his case in pre-charge evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents could be compensated by costs for having borne the delay. Notice of motion for 15.3.2011 subject to payment of costs of ` 10,000/- in favour of the accused which would be paid to them when they appear before this Court. Further proceedings before the trial Court are stayed.” In terms of the above order, petitioner deposited ` 10,000/- but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, though they have been served by way of affixation. On 18.11.2010, following order was passed by the trial court:- “ No pre charge evidence of the complainant is present. Today was the last opportunity granted to the Crl. Revision No. 3382 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - complainant to conclude its pre charge evidence of the complainant. There is no justification to afford further adjournment. Hence, the pre charge evidence of the complainant is closed by court order. Now to come up on 9.12.2010 for consideration” The case of the petitioner is that although summons had been issued qua PW Dr. Subhash C. Gehlot but the same could not be served on him as he had been transferred to Narnaul. In these circumstances, the trial court should have made another effort to serve the witness at the place of his new posting as the petitioner could not be said to be at fault. Accordingly, it would be just and expedient to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to examine Dr. Subhash C.Gehlot as a witness. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 is set aside. The trial court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to examine PW Dr. Subhash C. Gehlot through dasti process, issued by the court. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed further with the case, in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE August 03, 2011 Gurpreet