Crl. Misc. No. M – 14136 of 2010 O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 14136 of 2010 O&M) Date of decision:- 19.5.2010 Shamsher Singh Dahiya ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. The Petitioner – Shamsher Singh Dahiya, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for modifying the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani (Annexure P-8), so as to allow time to him to lead his defence in the private complaint dated 23.4.2009 filed against him by one Nasib (Annexure P-3) registered under Sections 323, 327, 384, 385, 386, 387, 506 and 34 IPC, in which he was summoned alongwith other four accused. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Jail Bhiwani and received D.O letter dated 15.4.2009 from Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar for keeping the husband of the said complainant and one Balwan Singh in separate confinement on the ground that they were running criminal gang in Haryana. In compliance of that D.O letter he kept those prisoners in separate confinement. In connection therewith those prisoners were brought to the main gate of the jail where they created a scene and tried to snatch the keys of the main gate. A complaint was filed by the complainant against him and others in the Crl. Misc. No. M – 14136 of 2010 O&M) -2- office of District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 25.4.2009, which was sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani for looking into the matter. That complaint was treated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and he alongwith other accused were summoned for the above said offences. The charge was framed on 12.3. 2010 and thereafter very short adjournments were given for the prosecution evidence. His statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.4.2010 and the case was adjourned for defence evidence. He moved an application (Annexure P-6) for the grant of opportunity to submit a list of witnesses and to summon them. He, through his counsel, sought information from the office of Superintendent Jail, Bhiwani, Senior Superintendent of Police Jhajjar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Hisar, regarding various facts about the production of the husband of the complainant before the Court, as he wanted to know the names of the constables on duty in whose presence various acts, as have been alleged were committed and wanted to summon those constables in his defence evidence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed him to submit list of witnesses by 7.5.2010. The order was passed on 3.5.2010 and only three days were given to him to produce the list of witnesses and as such the date was very short. He was prejudiced on account of short date. According to Section 243 after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, the accused is to be called upon to enter upon his defence and to produce his defence evidence. Under Sub-Section (2), he may apply to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of examination or cross- examination or the production of any documents or other thing. Thus the Crl. Misc. No. M – 14136 of 2010 O&M) -3- list, if any, is to be submitted for the summoning of the defence witnesses. The petitioner is not just an ordinary individual, but is the Superintendent of Jail and is standing his trial since long. He must be having his defence in his mind. He is seeking more time for submitting the list of witnesses on the ground that he is seeking information from various departments under RTI. If he was to seek that information he should have applied immediately after the trial had commenced. The only purpose of the petitioner appears to be to delay the trial. Section 243 (2) of the Code gives the discretion to the Magistrate to refuse to summon any witness in defence on the ground that it is for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice, though the said ground is to be recorded by him in writing. After the petitioner moved an application for the grant of time for submitting list of defence evidence he permitted the petitioner to file the same by 7.5.2010. Even then no such list was submitted nor any prayer was made for summoning any witness through the Court. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner is just interested in delaying the trial. No ground is made out for modifying the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Petition is dismissed. May 19, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge