IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-34690 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 03, 2011 Tara Chand Verma .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, vide which, the application filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence has been rejected. Petitioner carried a revision that has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order dated Crl. Misc. No. M-34690 of 2010 [2] 8.10.2010 (Annexure P-3). 2. The circumstances taken into account by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in order dated 15.6.2010 so as to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner, are that the charge was framed on 10.1.2004. Thereafter, the prosecution was given 12 effective opportunities including last opportunity to conclude its entire evidence. Prosecution, however, failed to conclude its evidence and ultimately, the evidence had to be closed by order of Court on 5.8.2009. The case was adjourned to 10.8.2009 for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement of accused was recorded and the case was fixed for defence evidence, if any, and for arguments. It is at that stage that present application was filed. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel before the Magistrate was that petitioner was in Australia from 17.9.2008 to 6.9.2009, and therefore, could not appear as a witness to give statement. 4. The argument is not available to the petitioner because the case had been fixed for prosecution evidence in 2004 itself, whereafter 12 effective opportunities were given. The petitioner was in Australia only during the period September 2008 to September 2009. The conduct of the petitioner has been casual. A litigant is required to be vigilant. I do not trace any illegality in the Crl. Misc. No. M-34690 of 2010 [3] order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, so as to call for interference. 5. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 03, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?