CRR No. 825 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 825 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.08.2010 Jasbir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent - State Mr. B S Sewak, 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 against the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the Court below closed the evidence of the prosecution by order in case FIR No. 93 dated 27.05.2000 under Sections 325, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Banur, District Patiala. The order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, closing the evidence of the prosecution, was set aside by the High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 in CRR No. 2328 of 2009, by CRR No. 825 of 2010 2 observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the FIR is now 9 years old and this is only an attempt to flog a dead hours. Learned counsel counsel for the petitioner states that for large period of those 9 years, proceedings were stayed and only in the year 2007 trial had actually started. In my opinion, a conspectus of the facts mentioned above does reveal that the present was not a case whereby the evidence of the prosecution should have been closed. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I direct the trial Court and respondent No. 1 to conclude the entire evidence on the next two date.” Thereafter, the prosecution witness was summoned vide order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Since no witness was present, the case was closed vide order dated 18.02.2010 on the ground that the High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 had granted only two effective opportunities. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the witness was not present on the said dates of hearing on account of the fact that he could not be served, whereas, it was the duty of the Court to take such steps which were necessary for the production of the witness. The prosecution too has not made any sincere efforts to comply with the orders passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is set aside with direction to the prosecution as well as to the trial Court to ensure the presence of the concerned witness in accordance with law and keeping in mind the spirit of the order dated CRR No. 825 of 2010 3 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court so that the evidence is finally completed within a reasonable time. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 06, 2010 mohan