HARISH CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that earlier this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-27992 of 2009 vide order dated 08.03.2010 has directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial by September 30, 2010, therefore, learned Trial Court has closed the prosecution evidence by the impugned order dated 07.10.2011. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the present case, only Investigating Officer is left to be examined, who has not Crl. Misc. No. M-31426 of 2011 appeared despite of summons being issued against him. He has further stated that for no fault of the complainant, prosecution evidence should not be closed and every effort should be made to summon the Investigating Officer to give his statement.

(2.) On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf the respondent.

(3.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned State counsel, present petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. If Investigating Officer is not appearing despite of summon being issued by the Trial Court, Trial Court is supposed to take coercive steps against the Investigating Officer to ensure his presence before the Court. For the fault of the Investigating Officer, prosecution evidence ordinarily should not be closed, therefore, present petition is allowed. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the presence of the Investigating Officer by coercive steps. Impugned order dated 07.10.2011 stands set aside. Trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial preferably within six months.