Crl. Misc. No.M-25462 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-25462 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 Rasid Ali ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the JMIC, Jagadhri to conclude the trial expeditiously in FIR No.67 dated 05.04.2007 under Sections 323/326/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar titled as State vs. Suleman and others in Case No.191/15.05.2007/27.08.2008. Order dated 03.05.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri has been brought to the notice of this Court, which reads as under :- “ An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused Intezar by learned defence counsel. Heard. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, personal appearance of accused Intezar is exempted for today only. Crl. Misc. No.M-25462 of 2010 2 One witness namely Rasid Ali is present whose examination in chief recorded completely. However, cross-examination of this witness is deferred on the request made by the learned counsel for the accused. Request allowed. Two Pws Liyakat Ali and Ashok Ali are also present and since date is requested on behalf of learned defence counsel. Therefore, accused are directed to pay Rs.100/- to each witness who are present today in the Court. Now to come upon 07.08.2010 for prosecution evidence. PWs namely Liyakat Ali and Ashok Ali and Rasid Ali are discharged today and bound down for the date fixed.” Thereafter, order dated 07.08.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri is also brought to the notice of this Court, which further reads thus :- “ An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused Shamshad by learned defence counsel. Heard. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, personal appearance of accused Shamshad is exempted for today only. Two Pws Liyakat Ali and Rasid are also present and since date is requested on behalf of learned defence counsel. Therefore, accused are directed to pay Rs.200/- as cost to each witness who are present today in the Court. Now to come upon 02.11.2010 for prosecution evidence. PWs namely Liyakat Ali and Rasid are discharged today and bound down for the date fixed. It is apparent that the delay is being caused by filing exemption for non-appearance on one pretext or the other. It is pointed out by Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G., Haryana, on instructions from ASI Kiranpal, that out of the ten witnesses, six have been examined, four are left, out of which, three are the official witnesses. It is further stated that the next date Crl. Misc. No.M-25462 of 2010 3 fixed before the trial Court is 24.01.2011. In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to finally decide the matter as expeditiously as possible within three months of the next date of hearing and prosecution shall try and record the statement of remaining witnesses on the next date of hearing. Disposed of in the above said terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 01.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet