Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 28, 2009 Balbir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Bhagwant Singh .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 4969 of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 81 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case : Complainant Balbir Singh has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran thereby discharging the respondent Bhagwant Singh in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner under Sections 392, 452, 34, 504, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 2 case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after summoning of the respondent as accused vide order dated 19.11.2004, for offences under Sections 452 and 506 IPC, the accused put in appearance on 06.05.2005. The case was thereafter fixed for pre-charge evidence of the petitioner- complainant on various dates of hearing. Ultimately, on 22.01.2008, the petitioner gave undertaking to conclude his pre-charge evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. on 05.03.2008. However, the case was thereafter adjourned to 25.03.2008 and 13.06.2008 and finally to 08.09.2008, but the complainant did not conclude his pre-charge evidence. The complainant had examined only one witness Gurmit Singh. The learned Magistrate by impugned order did not grant further adjournment to the complainant for his evidence. Since the complainant had himself not stepped into witness- box, the learned Magistrate found that there was no sufficient evidence to frame charge against the accused. The accused respondent was accordingly discharged. From the aforesaid facts revealed by the impugned order, it is manifest that the petitioner has miserably failed to lead evidence for framing of charge against the respondent. The petitioner himself did not step into the witness box and therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Statement of Gurmit Singh alone, in the absence of statement of complainant himself, was not sufficient to frame charge against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner- complainant may be granted one more opportunity to lead pre-charge evidence. I find no force in the contention. The petitioner has already been granted indulgence by the trial Magistrate. As noticed herein above, the petitioner on 22.01.2008, undertook to conclude his entire evidence on the next date of hearing. The case was adjourned to 05.03.2008 and thereafter adjourned to 25.03.2008, 13.06.2008 and finally to 08.09.2008, but the Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 3 complainant failed to conclude his pre-charge evidence. Even prior to 22.01.2008, the complainant had availed of numerous opportunities for pre- charge evidence because the accused had put in appearance on 06.05.2005. In these circumstances, no ground for granting another opportunity to the petitioner for leading pre-charge evidence is made out. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find that the impugned order of learned Magistrate does not suffer from any perversity or illegality or such grave error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE