IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1617 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 29, 2011 Jaswinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby application filed by the prosecution, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 Santosh Kumari @ Sonu Bala (complainant) for her cross-examination has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel contends that as per the reports earlier received in regard to summoning the said witness, Santosh Kumari was residing abroad and there is no likelihood of her coming back. Crl. Revision No.1617 of 2011 [2] 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 4. Perusal of order dated 2.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) indicates that the case was not adjourned to allow cross-examination of PW-1 Santosh Kumari because the case had been made time bound by this Court vide Order dated 25.2.2011. At this point in time, when the witness is ready and willing to present herself for cross-examination, the application has been allowed while giving one opportunity to the witness to appear for remaining cross examination. The witness has been summoned for 5.8.2011. 5. Considering the fact that ends of justice require the statement of the witness to be completed and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, viz. final arguments have not been addressed till now, the petition is dismissed. 6. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be given to cross-examine PW-1 Santosh Kumar @ Sonu Bala. 7. Let a copy of this order be given under signatures of Special Secretary of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) July 29, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?