IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29277 of 2010 Date of decision : 04.10.2010 Jaipal Thind …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner assails the order dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara. In terms of the said order, the production of various documents sought by the petitioner for the purposes of cross-examination of K.K. Sharma, Superintendent has been declined. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC for the embezzlement of college funds. During trial of the case one K.K. Sharma, Superintendent of the College was examined. The petitioner filed an application for production of 16 documents for the purposes of his cross-examination. The learned trial Magistrate has declined the application on the ground that there is no relevancy of the said documents. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 243 (2) CrPC which envisages that in case the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of Crl. Misc. No. M-29277 of 2010 [2] examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing. The learned Magistrate has observed that the relevancy of the documents which have been sought to be summoned has not been mentioned. Besides, a similar application had earlier been filed by the accused on 19.8.2005 in which the documents at serial No.1 to 7 were also claimed and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2007. It was observed that there was no justification for summoning the record that was asked for from the concerned college as the accused would be given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence in defence to rebut the evidence by the prosecution. The petitioner had concealed the fact of filing the previous application; besides, he has not been able to show the relevancy of the documents which are asked for. It was observed that the application in the considered opinion of the Court had been filed to delay the proceedings in the present case. It was also observed that the accused in the application at serial No.13 had sought the production of certain documents in original. These documents were not produced by the prosecution, but the copies thereof were put by the accused himself to the witnesses. Accordingly, the application for the production of documents has been dismissed. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara. Besides, as observed, the petitioner would have his right to produce his defence in accordance with law. The learned Crl. Misc. No. M-29277 of 2010 [3] Magistrate has also recorded that in his considered opinion the application had been filed to delay the proceedings. Therefore, specific ground regarding delay is duly mentioned. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 4, 2010 amit