IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.15352 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 26, 2010 SURAT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Hamid Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against order dated 12.5.2009, whereby the application filed by the accused under Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, for bringing additional evidence has been dismissed. The relevant discussion is contained in para-7 of the impugned order. It has been considered by the court that the additional evidence sought to be brought on the record is plaint in civil suit, copy of complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant in the civil suit. All the documents were in existence before the judgment was pronounced by the trial court and the accused had ample opportunity to file an application before the trial court and confront the witness with the said documents and cross-examine Criminal Misc. No.15352 -M of 2009 2 so as to contradict the prosecution case. Likewise, sale deed and order of Collector dated 4.1.1997 were also in existence, before the accused were given opportunity to lead evidence in defence. I find no fault with the reasons given by the courts below for dismissing the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is the fault of the counsel, for which the client must not be made to suffer. The trial court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.4.2008 in FIR No.30 dated 22.2.1997 under Sections 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. All through the trial period, the evidence was not brought on record. It is not the case of the petitioner that due opportunity to lead evidence was not given. If the contention regarding fault of the lawyer is to be accepted, no proceedings would reach a logical end. The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference at this stage of the case to set the clock back to the stage of leading evidence. Fault of a lawyer cannot be pleaded in each and every case to ask the court to show indulgence and condone the fault. The petitioners were also required to be vigilant and diligent and ensure that the evidence or material in their possession is brought on record, as per requirement of the defence, or prosecution as the case may be. A simple statement that the lawyer is at fault would not allow the litigant the liberty to ask the court to show indulgence in routine which would delay the proceedings. The petitioners have not brought any material on the record to show that they had showed Criminal Misc. No.15352 -M of 2009 3 diligence and had given complete and required instructions to their advocate. In such circumstances, the plea is not acceptable. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is dismissed. February 26, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?