Crl. Revision No.1590 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1590 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.7.2010 Partap Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kunal Chhoker, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a revision petition directed against the order, passed by Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby application of the petitioner to summon two defence witnesses was declined vide order dated 18th May, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has no reason to delay the trial of the case as he himself is in custody. He has, therefore, assailed the impugned order on the ground that Section 233 (3) Cr.P.C. has been wrongly invoked by the court below as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the trial. Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner wants to examine defence witnesses, only one opportunity be granted for this purpose. Crl. Revision No.1590 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner was accused in the case and he himself is in custody alongwith other co-accused for last eleven months. His application for summoning defence witnesses has been declined on the ground that same was for purpose of causing vexation/delay. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is himself in custody, he does not stand to gain anything by delaying the case. Under the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. The petitioner may be granted one opportunity by the trial court to examine defence witnesses. The trial court shall issue process for the same and petitioner shall be at liberty to examine the persons, who have been cited as defence witnesses. No further opportunity shall be afforded to the accused for this purpose. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No