Criminal Revision No.2767 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2767 of 2011 Date of decision : 09.11.2011. Gurjit Singh and others ................ Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another ................. Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri B.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C. PURI, J. Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by Smt.Rajwinder Kaur, PCS, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala vide which the application of the prosecution to examine Gurjit Singh alias Kala son of Ajaib Singh resident of village Sanghera as witness has been allowed. 2. The accused/petitioners are facing trial in respect of FIR No.169 dated 4.7.2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC Criminal Revision No.2767 of 2011 2 registered at Police Station Kotwali Barnala. The allegations in the FIR are that Satnam Singh has entered into agreement to sell his land on 29.10.2004 @ Rs.4,55,000/- per acre and received Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money from the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement. Joginder Singh Lamberdar and Gurjit Singh son of Ajaib Singh were the witnesses. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 15.6.2005. However, Satnam Singh with an intention to cause the loss to the complainant forged and fabricated agreement dated 14.10.2004 in the earlier date alleged to be in favour of Harbhagat Singh son of Gajjan Singh. 3. The prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Gurjit Singh alias Kala son of Ajaib Singh resident of Sanghera as prosecution witness. It is mentioned in the application that inadvertently the name of Gurjit Singh could not be mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the said witness is essential for the just decision of the case. 4. The said application was resisted by the accused/petitioners. It is stated that Gurjit Singh has been shown as witness and so many opportunities have been afforded to the prosecution to lead the evidence. The application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 12.10.2011 reached to the conclusion that examination of Gurjit Singh alias Kala is essential for the just decision of the case and consequently allowed the application. The said order of allowing Gurjit Singh has been challenged in the present revision petition before this Court. Criminal Revision No.2767 of 2011 3 6. The main stress of counsel for the revisionist is that Gurjit Singh cannot be allowed to be summon to fill up the lacuna. The investigation agency has knowingly not mentioned Gurjit Singh as witness. The case was pending since 17.2.2006 and only five witnesses have been examined in the last five and half years. Joginder Singh attesting witness was cited as witness and said Joginder Singh has been given up. So, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists but do not find any force in those submissions. 8. The name of witness Gurjit Singh is mentioned in the FIR itself. The trial Court has reached to the conclusion that additional evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. So, mere delay in concluding the trial is not a ground to disallow the application. So, no ground for interference in the present revision petition is made out. 9. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 09, 2011 sv