Criminal Revision No. 2264 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2264 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.9.2009 Jaswant .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.8.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for getting the letters mark D1 and D2 examined by Handwriting Expert, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid two letters were written by the prosecutrix to her uncle and friend, where it was specifically mentioned that she was in love with the petitioner. He further submitted that the aforesaid two letters were put to the prosecutrix in her cross- examination, but she denied the same. To prove these letters, the report of Handwriting Expert would be required. He further submitted that there is no intention of the petitioner to delay the trial as he and other accused except Ramesh, who is father of the petitioner, are in custody. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the application has been filed by the petitioner at a belated stage. No prayer for examination of the documents was made when the prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Seven opportunities for leading defence evidence were availed of but nothing was done. The object is only to delay the trial. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the prayer made by the petitioner. As the petitioner along with other co-accused are in custody, the delay in trial will not, in any case, benefit them. For holding a fair Criminal Revision No. 2264 of 2009 [2] trial, in case there are certain letters, which were already confronted to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination and have been placed on record as mark D1 and D2 written in the hands of the prosecutrix and in case the petitioner wants to prove the same on record in defence, in my opinion, opportunity should not be denied to him, merely because the application was filed when the defence evidence was being led. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for examination of the documents mark D1 and D2 by Handwriting Expert is allowed. The petition stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.9.2009 mk