In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 81 of 2009 Date of Decision:April 16, 2009 Dara Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. G.K.Mann,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Dara Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the judgment dated 26.8.2008 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar whereby respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charge framed against them. The prosecution story in brief, as noticed by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “Prosecution story in brief is that Chetan Singh s/o Gurdit Singh r/o village Tugal Tehsil Rai Kot, District Ludhiana made a complaint to the SSP Amritsar himself stating there in that a case between the parties titled as Daljit Kaur vs. Cheta Singh was pending in the court of Sh. Arunveer Vashisht, JMIC, Crl. Revision No. 81 of 2009 -2- Amritsar and on 16.5.2000 when the said case was adjourned they were present on the date of the court where accused Narinder Kaur and ASI Balwinder Singh were present and they took him to P.S.Islamabad in a Maruti Car where he was detained for some time and was released in the evening. It is also stated in the complaint that 4/5 persons of Narinder Kaur took away his nephew Dara Singh and Dar Singh gave a ring to him that the said persons took out the documents and keys of their house of Delhi and also took out a sum of Rs. 1500/- 1600/- from his bag forcibly and he is in the custody of the persons of the accused and he apprehends danger to his life. On the basis of this, formal FIR was recorded at the police station. Police made investigation in this case. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented before the court, copies of which were supplied to the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has erred in closing the prosecution evidence by order and thereafter acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charge framed against them. The trial court has failed to take coercive steps to ensure the presence of the prosecution witnesses. In the present case, charge was framed against respondents No. 2 and 3 on 18.7.2005 and thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for prosecution evidence. Last opportunity was granted to the prosecution to lead its evidence. Despite that prosecution failed to lead any Crl. Revision No. 81 of 2009 -3- evidence. In these circumstances, left with no other alternative, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar closed the prosecution evidence by order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 16, 2009 PARAMJIT