Crl. Revision No.2652 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2652 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Rintu Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, KKR, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this Court vide order dated 21.9.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. No M-27730 of 2009 has directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within eight months after receipt of the copy of order dated 21.9.2010. It has further been argued that order dated 21.9.2010 was received by learned trial Court from the Registry of this Court on 7.10.2010, therefore, trial ought to have been concluded within eight months from 7.10.2010; since trial could not be concluded within the stipulated time, therefore, petitioner has moved an application before the trial Court on 1.8.2011 to the effect that after the expiry of the time as fixed by this Court, petitioner/accused could not be compelled to cross-examine the witness. Learned counsel has further argued that no order was passed on application dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P-3); thereafter, this Court vide order dated Crl. Revision No.2652 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 14.9.2011 (Annexure P-5) has extended the time for four months; however, on 19.8.2011 when prosecution witness was present for cross- examination he was not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused thinking that after the expiry of the time, as fixed by this Court, learned trial Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Learned counsel has further argued that accused/petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witness after setting aside order dated 19.8.2011 in view of extension of four months time by this Court vide order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure P-5). Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.535 dated 26.7.2009 under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC. Perusal of the record further reveals that this Court vide order dated 21.9.2010 has passed following order: - “It will be a disputed question of fact whether complainant-respondent Pushpa Devi had suffered injury on her right foot on 21.07.2009 or she had suffered fracture prior to the said date and whether she on the basis of existing injury falsely implicated the petitioners who live in the neighbourhood of the complainant having a litigation with the complainant. It will not be appropriate in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to enter into niceties of the trial and determine the age of the injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant party. It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioners, prima facie, seem to have a very good defence in their favour which has to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court. Striking a balance between the right of the prosecution agency and the right of personal liberty of the petitioners, it is deemed appropriate, in the interest of justice, to order that the trial in this case will be completed within a period of 8 months after the receipt of a copy of this order. The personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court will remain exempted in case an application is filed by the petitioners. The said application will be allowed subject to any conditions imposed by the trial Court, in case the petitioners make a statement before the trial Court that they will not dispute their identity and will have no objection in case the Crl. Revision No.2652 of 2011 (O&M) -3- examination of the prosecution witnesses and their cross- examination is conducted in their absence but in the presence of their counsel as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. It is also observed here that in case the trial Court at the time of framing of charges feels that there is no allegation against petitioner No.2 Rintu Kumar, it will be open to the Court to discharge petitioner No.2.” Perusal of the record further reveals that this Court vide order dated 14.9.2011 has passed following order: - “It is accepted. Four months time is granted for disposal of the case as prayed for.” Undisputedly, this Court vide order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure P-5) has extended time by four months, therefore, trial Court has to conclude trial within four months from 14.9.2011 which is still not expired. If learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses on 19.8.2011 he has to blame himself. Trial does not stand vitiated, as argued by learned counsel for the accused, in view of further extension on 14.9.2011. Petition is mis-conceived. Hence is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge October 31, 2011 R.S.