JATINDER BACHAN SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail the order dated 20.10.2010 (P5) passed by the learned Additional CJM, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Magistrate has adjourned the case to trace out the file and deferred the crossexamination of PW Satinder Sampuran Singh for 3.11.2010.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioners, they have faced the travails of the prosecution and the trial for the last more than one decade. It is submitted that Satinder Sampuran Singh Grewal (respondent- 2) is the real brother of petitioner-1. Respondent-2 lodged the FIR on 13.2.1999. Thereafter, the charges in the case were framed on 16.9.2000.

(3.) The prosecution was granted 87 opportunities to lead the entire evidence. During trial, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. Thereafter, in order to delay the trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the complainant (respondent-2) for exhibiting his Passport. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.8.2010 (P1). On the next date, the prosecution filed another application under Section 311 CrPC for exhibiting certain documents, which was dismissed on 7.9.2010 (P2). Respondent-2 then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court and the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 8.10.2010 (P3) upheld the order dated 7.9.2010 (P2), which was the second application filed by the prosecution for exhibiting some documents. However, with regard to the order dated 13.8.2010 (P1), one opportunity was granted to the prosecution to produce the record from the Record Room and lead its entire evidence. In terms of order dated 8.10.2010 (P3), it has been observed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge that the evidence of the prosecution could not have been closed on 13.8.2010 and one more opportunity ought to be granted to the prosecution to get the record produced from the Record Room in the Court. Accordingly, the prosecution was given one more opportunity to lead its entire evidence. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.10.2010. On that day, the order (P4) was passed. It is observed therein that the defence counsel had moved an application for adjournment. The prosecution had been granted one opportunity to lead its entire evidence on 20.10.2010. The complainant was recalled for cross-examination on 20.10.2010. On 20.10.2010, the impugned order (P5) was passed. A reading of the said order (P5) shows that it was observed by the learned Addl CJM that the original file had not been received from the Record Room and the Record Keeper was directed to trace out the file. The examination-in-chief of PW Satinder Sampuran Singh Grewal (respondent-2) was recorded and it is on the request of the defence i.e. the petitioners that the case was adjourned for his cross examination to 3.11.2010.