Crl. Revision No.3268 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.3268 of 2010 Date of Decision : 05.01.2011 Nachattar Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr.A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, declining the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to allow the prosecution to examining the handwriting and finger prints expert and seeking summoning original file No. 822 pertaining to loan case of Bachan Singh son of Tota Singh, resident of village Hamidi from the office of Housefed, Punjab, Chandigarh. Petitioner / accused Rajinder Singh, Hakam Singh and Gurbachan Singh (since deceased) were subsequently summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused, therefore, the prosecution had no opportunity to lead evidence against them. These persons denied their signatures on respective documents i.e. Crl. Revision No.3268 of 2010 -2- Certificate and affidavits Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/C when their signatures are available on charge-sheet and statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the file. These signatures are sought to be compared with the original documents in the above said loan file through a handwriting and finger prints expert. After going through the record of the case, the Judicial Magistrate rejected this application, on the ground that these accused had been summoned way back vide order dated 8.9.2005. Charges against them were framed on 2.5.2006. Ever since then much water has flown. The charges against them were corrected by this Court in 6.10.2010. The prosecution had availed 27 effective opportunities to lead evidence. In the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sangrur, the learned trial Court observed that he has already been examined after giving three opportunities i.e. on 20.5.2010. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 31.7.2010. The present application was moved on 6.10.2010. This matter has been pending in the learned trial Court since the year 2003 and the prosecution has taken ample time to close the evidence. It was in the knowledge of the prosecution that the stand taken by the accused, they were denying their signatures / execution of the referred documents. They had done so in cross- examination upon the PWs. The application has been filed to fill up the lacuna at this belated stage. Mr.A.S. Barnala, earned counsel for the petitioner Crl. Revision No.3268 of 2010 -3- vehemently argued that once three accused were summoned as additional accused, the prosecution had right to lead evidence for comparing their signatures with the original documents in the loan file through a handwriting and finger print expert. The fact that these accused had been summoned in the way back on 8.9.2005 and charges were framed on 2.5.2006, could not be disputed by him. In view of the above, litigation has been pending since 2003 and the prosecution had availed 27 effective opportunities to lead evidence and three accused ad been summoned way back in the year 2005, the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference by this Court. No merit. Criminal revision dismissed. 05.01.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE