CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-31914 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 19, 2011 Dr.Akhlesh Dutt Tiwari .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner apparently has approached this Court with somewhat strange relief. He seeks quashing of order dated 26.9.2011, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed his plea to acquit him of the criminal charge being tried by the Court. As per the petitioner, this order is wrong and arbitrary. How this Court can competently issue direction to acquit the petitioner in a criminal case pending before Trial Court is not explained in any manner. Apparently, such a plea under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In fact, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the charges framed against him, which include the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. The CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-31914 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioner, while serving as a doctor, has accepted different sums of bribe from students and his prayer made against the charges framed was upheld on the technical grounds. The case was remitted back to the Trial Court for reframing the charges in accordance with law. Thereafter, the trial has proceeded to reframe the charges. There is no change in the charges except that earlier charges, which were clubbed together, have been separately charged as per the requirement. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses already examined, when the prosecution did not intend to lead any additional evidence or a witness after the amendment of the charge. The petitioner had declined to cross-examine any of the witness. Thereafter, the petitioner availed numerous opportunities to lead defence and has now moved this application before the Trial Court. In this background, the petitioner was totally misconceived in moving an application for his acquittal. In any case, this Court can and would not entertain such prayer to record acquittal or direct the Trial Court to record acquittal where the trial is in progress. The petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, counsel seeks permission to withdrawn this petition. The same is declined. October 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-31914 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: