CRR No. 429 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 429 of 2011 Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Dr. Minna ........ Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K D S Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide which, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been allowed. While challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution had already submitted a list of 91 witnesses and till date only 9 witnesses have been examined. Out the said nine witnesses, name of six witnesses did not figure in the said list. Thereafter, the petitioner raised objections. But his said objections were dismissed. Thereafter, the prosecution submitted another list of 91 witnesses even though the earlier list had not been exhausted. Heard. CRR No. 429 of 2011 2 Nothing has been pointed out to show that the subsequent list of witnesses provided is not in accordance with law or that there is any bar to the supplying of additional names of the witnesses to be examined and as to why the prosecution cannot examined them. Moreover, the prosecution evidence is still being recorded. Thus, it cannot be said that the application under section 311 Cr.P.C is at belated stage. As many as 54 challans have been filed. As such, there is bound to be a long list of witnesses. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C cannot be rejected on the ground that another list of 91 witnesses has been submitted. No other ground has been raised. In view of the well settled provisions of law as well as the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C, nothing has been pointed out which may enable this Court to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, taking into account the fact that the challan was filed as early as on 2000, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial Court. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.05.2011 mohan