IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.365 of 2002 Date of decision: 16th March, 2010 Bal Bahadur Singh Batta … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Bal Bahadur Singh Batta, who was sought to be prosecuted in case FIR No.160 dated 30.08.1998 registered at Police Station Mohali under Section 420 IPC. The FIR has been attached with the present petition as Annexure P1, wherein it has been stated that Raj Kumar had cheated the complainant and had taken Rs.80,000/- for providing some work (role) to son of the complainant in the film industry. During investigation, the petitioner was also found as an accused. He filed an application for anticipatory bail but the same was declined vide order (Annexure P-2) by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roopnagar. The petitioner approached this Court and he was granted bail vide order (Annexure P-3). On 8th January, 1999, the complainant filed an application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roopnagar praying that in the bail order it has been wrongly recorded that the complainant had cheated for Rs.3,50,000/-, but in fact, the amount of cheating was Rs.80,000/-. In this application, notice was issued to the accused petitioner vide order (Annexure P-5). On 3rd August, 2001, it was reported that notice issued to the petitioner has not been Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2002 received back. A similar order was passed on 29th September, 2001. However, vide the impugned order dated 10th November, 2001, Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar carried the correction and the concluding portion of the order reads as under: “After going through the F.I.R. as well as complaint filed by Manohar Singh complainant, I am satisfied that Rs.80,000/- were paid by the complainant to the accused for adjustment of his son between the period June 1996 to October, 1996 and this amount is allowed to be corrected in the said orders. Application is disposed of accordingly. Pronounced Sd/- 10.11.2001 Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar.” A grievance has been made in the present revision petition that before passing the order of correction, petitioner was not heard. Any order passed in bail application determines no right of the parties. The complainant has to depose against the accused during the trial. The accused has always liberty to confront him with the averments made in the bail application if it is supported by the affidavit. The operation of the impugned order was stayed on 22nd February, 2002. By now, the trial may have been over. Nobody is present to acquaint this Court regarding the status of the trial. The impugned order has not determined the rights of the parties. in view of this, it is ordered that in case the trial has not concluded, the parties will be at liberty to urge before the trial Court as to whether the correction was necessary or not. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 16, 2010 rps 2