1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 4917-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.10.2009 *** United Church of Northern India Trust Association .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3. . *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-complainant is aggrieved with order dated 23.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar whereby in trial of case FIR No. 204 dated 23.9.2000, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Ropar against respondents No.2 and 3, the evidence of the prosecution has been closed by the Court by observing that it has failed to conclude the same despite availing numerous opportunities. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made request that it is a case involving the the monetary interests of an institution working for the welfare of the people and the complainant needs only two effective opportunities to conclude the evidence, the refusal of which may resulted into irreparable loss to the complainant. On the other hand, the prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order shows that though sufficient opportunities were availed by the prosecution for its evidence, but the perusal of various zimni orders reproduced in the petition, reveals that the prosecution alone is 2 not responsible for the delay of the trial, but on various occasions, the case kept on adjourning from one date to another on account of non-appearance of the accused as well, resulting into acquiring of old status by the case and prompting the Court below to close the prosecution evidence. In the light of aforesaid facts and keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this Court is of the considered opinion that two more effectivies opportunity are to be provided to the prosecution for its evidence. Even otherwise, rules and procedures are handmaid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the complainant for its evidence and then proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 8, 2009 Jiten