Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.01.2011 Shankar Lal ...Petitioner Vs. Chander Kala & Anr. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. Crl.M.No.5417 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.M-2938 of 2011 The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 9.112010 annexed with the petition as Annexure P.4, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby charge framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside and trial court has been directed to take some more evidence for reconsideration of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a driver and it was the duty of the contractors to adopt the safety measures and petitioner being driver was not supposed to observe any safety Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011 2 measure. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that finding has been given in favour of petitioner but still the case has been remanded for reconsideration without any reason. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other material available on record. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner being driver has nothing to do with safety measures and the same was to be taken by the lease-holder only, is not worth convincing as it is a matter of evidence which is to be seen at the time of trial. The direction has been issued to the trial court vide order dated 9.11.2010 to reconsider the framing of charge on the basis of evidence already available on the file and after taking into consideration some more evidence, if produced by the complainant. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the safety measures is concerned nothing has come on record while framing of charge whether the petitioner being driver was not supposed to observe any safety measure. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which requires interference with the impugned order as the trial court has been directed only to reconsider the evidence, if any, on the part of the complainant. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 31.01.2011 JUDGE rp