Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2000 Date of decision: February 15, 2008 Gurpreet Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) On February 04, 2008, this Court passed the following order: “In the present case, charge was framed against the petitioner Gurpreet Singh on 26.8.2000. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside order framing charge. On 5.1.2001, this court issued notice of motion and ordered that trial Court may continue with the trial but may not pass final order before the date fixed. On 8.8.2002, this court admitted the revision petition and stayed further proceedings. Between 22.7.2000 and 8.8.2002 trial may have proceeded. Report be sought from the Sub Divisional Judicial Magist0-rate, Safidon, District Jind in case FIR No.266 dated 20.4.1998 registered at Police Station Safaidon, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, as to what happened between 26.8.2000 and 8.8.2002. This report be sought by the Registry and submit to this court on or before 15.2.2008.” Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2000 2 In compliance with the orders of this Court, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon has sent the following communication to the registry of this Court: “With reference to your office memo No.2980 Crl.CC5/dated 7.2.2008, I have the honour to submit that between 26.8.2000 to 8.8.2002 charge was framed against accused Gurpreet on 26.8.2000 and two witnesses namely ASI Ram Mehar and HC Chatter Singh were examined on 25.11.2000. Thereafter, proceedings of the case were stayed on dated 8.8.2002 when the case was fixed on the prosecution evidence. It is submitted, please.” That in the present revision petition, reliance is being placed upon Annexure P-3, wherein DSP Safidon had found the petitioner to be innocent. It has been further held that similarly situated co-accused Satpal Singh has already been discharged vide order (Annexure P-2). A perusal of Annexure P-2 itself shows that it was stated by the trial Court that there is no record as to what role was played by accused Satpal in this case. While discharging Satpal, it has been held in Annexure P-2 that for consideration on charge against present petitioner, case to come up for hearing on 26.11.1999. The order of framing charge (Annexure P-4) is a well reasoned order. No interference is called for. Since as per the report, two witnesses were examined and trial is in progress, no interference is called for by this revisional Court. The liberty is granted to petitioner to raise all arguments before the trial Court as once prosecution evidence had commenced. The trial should continue to its logical conclusion. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 15, 2008. rps