CRR No. 949 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 949 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Paramjit Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P S Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 13.03.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, whereby the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has failed in its duty to enforce the attendance of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and also failed to give the particulars of the records being summoned from those witnesses in the summons itself. Thereafter, evidence was closed vide order dated 13.03.2010 passed by the CRR No. 949 of 2010 2 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. A perusal of the said order dated 13.03.2010 shows that the evidence was closed in pursuance to the order dated 11.04.2008 passed by this High Court in CRM M 9524 of 2008, vide which, it was directed to ensure that the evidence of the prosecution be concluded within three dates from the first date fixed for the evidence of the prosecution after the receipt of a certified copy of the said order. It seems that there is merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the attendance of the prosecution witnesses was not enforced. The petitioner cannot suffer on account of the lapse of the prosecution to produce the evidence. Accordingly, the said three dates have lapsed without any prosecution witnesses being either present or examined. In order to arrive at truth and proper adjudication of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the time already granted by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2008, is further extended by granting three more opportunities to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. The prosecution shall make sure that all the witnesses are examined on the particular date(s) fixed by the trial Court. However, seeing that it is an old case, the said dates will be given in a manner so that the evidence of the witnesses is completed within one month from the next date fixed before the trial Court. The petition is disposed of in the manner as referred to above. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 19, 2010 mohan