Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs Rama And Others on 19 November, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No.3363 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No.3363 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2012
Gian Kaur
......Petitioner
Versus
Rama and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 21.8.2012, whereby evidence of the prosecution was closed by order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The contents of the impugned order read as under:-
1. "File taken up today as 20.8.12 was declared holiday.
Statement of Dalbir Chand has been recorded. Again no evidence of the prosecution is present despite service. A perusal of the file reveals that charge in this CRR No.3363 of 2012 (O&M) 2 case was framed on 20.10.2007 and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution. Sufficiently i.e. 14 opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. A last opportunity for the evidence of prosecution was granted on 16.2.2012. Even then the prosecution could not conclude its evidence. The case being old one. Therefore, no ground is made out to grant further adjournment for the evidence of prosecution and the same is liable to be closed. It is directed accordingly, and the evidence of the prosecution is closed by order. For recording the statement of accused in terms of Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the case is to come up on 27.8.2012."
Thus, a perusal of the above order reveals that as many as 14 opportunities were granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. Despite grant of last opportunity, the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence.
There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case had not been adjourned for 20.8.2012 on 29.5.2012. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the interim order passed on 29.5.2012 as reproduced in the grounds of petition. Although certified copy of the interim order is not on record but it is presumed that the same as reproduced in the grounds of petition is correct. A perusal of the said interim order reveals that on 29.5.2012, the case was adjourned for remaining prosecution evidence for 20.7.2012 subject to last opportunity. CRR No.3363 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 21.8.2012. It appears that due to inadvertence, the adjourned date was written in the interim order dated 29.5.2012 as 20.7.2012, because on 21.8.2012 the accused had also appeared before the court along with his counsel. The case was taken up on 21.8.2012 as 20.8.2012 was a holiday. Further it is evident from the impugned order that no objection in this regard was raised by the accused or the prosecution. Further one prosecution witness was examined on 21.8.2012. This shows that prosecution was well aware of the adjourned date on 29.5.2012. The petitioner is merely trying to take benefit of the typographical error in the adjourned date in order dated 29.5.2012.
In view of the above facts, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 19, 2012 anita