IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 58 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.08.2011 Madan Lal ..Petitioner Versus Inderjit & Ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition for challenging the order dated 23.10.2009, whereby evidence of the prosecution was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry officer, who had conducted the inquiry before registration of FIR was necessary to be examined as a witness. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that prosecution had taken numerous opportunies to conclude its evidence but had failed to do so despite last 4 opportunities. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The impugned order dated 23.10.2009 reads as under:- “An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Harbans Lal for today. In view of the contents of application, his personal appearance is exempted for today only. No PW is present nor served despite last Crl. Rev. No. 58 of 2010 -2- opportunity. Prosecution has already availed sufficient opportunities including four last opportunities, but prosecution has failed to conclude its entire evidence. Ld. APP requests for further adjourning the case for prosecution evidence. This case is coming in the list of old 200 cases and pertaining to the year 2000. I find no justification for further adjourning the case for prosecution evidence. As such, evidence of the prosecution is closed by order. Now to come up for recording the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for 28.10.2009”. A perusal of the same reveals that suficient opportunities had been granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. The case pertains to the year 2000 and despite last four opportunities, the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence. The prosecution has examined all the material witnesses and only the Inquiry Officer, who had conducted an enquiry, which formed basis of the FIR has not been examined. In the facts and circumstances of the present case no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 18, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)