IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.8977-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 20, 2008 SUBH RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Summet Goel, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed in challenge to order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby prosecution evidence has been closed by order of court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the trial has been delayed on account of conduct of the accused and not the prosecution. On 12.11.2005, accused-Raj Kumar was not present. On 18.7.2006, one prosecution witness-Tej Singh was examined. On 3.2.2007, again, accused-Raj Kumar was absent and the proceedings could not progress. On 12.6.2007, Dr. B.B. Aggarwal was examined on behalf of the prosecution, however, last opportunity was given. On 6.10.2007, the Presiding Officer was on leave Criminal Misc.8977-M of 2008 2 and, therefore, none of the parties could be blamed for the adjournment of the case to 15.1.2008 i.e. the date on which the impugned order has been passed. On 7.1.2008, the petitioner moved an application for summoning of Dr. R.K. Marva, Dental Surgeon, along with the record. Diet money was deposited as the trial court had allowed the application. On 15.1.2008, one prosecution witness was examined. Only Dr. R.K. Marva, Dental Surgeon, remained to be examined and, therefore, an adjournment was asked for. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has opposed the petition on the ground that three effective opportunities have been given. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Having noticed the undisputed facts given hereinabove, I find that one of the witnesses was examined on 15.1.2008. One of the accused himself is responsible for two adjournments. On one occasion, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The relevance of examination of Dr. R.K. Marva, Dental Surgeon, is not in dispute. Circumstances and the interest of justice, therefore, warrant that the petition be allowed and order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) be set aside. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) is set aside. The prosecution would be granted one opportunity to examine the witness, however, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. October 20, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE