IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M 3586 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.2.2010 Gurmukh Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARBANS LAL, J. (ORAL) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PWs Paramjit Singh, Inderjit Kaur, Dr. M.P.S. Sahni and ASI Dalip Kumar, still remain to be examined, but the learned trial Court has shut out the prosecution evidence without any just and reasonable cause. The impugned order reads as under: “ No PW is present. Adjournment sought which is opposed. Perusal of the case file reveals that the present case pertains to the year 2000 and is in the list of 100 old criminal cases of this court and according to the direction issued by Hon'ble High Court such type of the cases are to be disposed off at the earliest. Hence there is no justification in further adjourning the case for the same purpose, as such prosecution evidence is hereby closed by court order. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. Now, to come upon 1.2.2010 for defence evidence if any and for arguments.” CRM No. M 3586 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Axiomatically, this order is absolutely silent about the receipt/non-receipt of summons either served or unserved. If these were received back unexecuted, it was obligatory upon the Court to have recorded the endorsements made thereon. This order no where says that the prosecution has faltered to conclude its evidence, despite the fact that last opportunity had been granted to it. Seemingly, the learned trial Court has given more weightage to the early disposal of the case at the cost of justice. The dispensation of quack justice should not be allowed to hold sway in the name of quick justice. Justice should not only be done, but it must be undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done merely because, this case figures in the list of 100 old cases does not mean that it should be disposed of by causing injustice to the prosecution. To imbibe confidence of the public in the system of administration of justice, disposal of the case should not be given precedence over justice. In view of the above discussion, this laconic and non- reasoned order is set aside with a direction to the trial court to afford one more opportunity to the prosecution to conclude its evidence by giving one month's time to the prosecution for service of summons. The date shall be fixed by the learned trial Court for evidence of prosecution. Disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Bench. February 5, 2010 (HARBANS LAL) rishu JUDGE