Jatinder Bachan Singh Grewal and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

S.S. Saron, J.—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 cross-examination of PW - Satinder Sampuran Singh for

3.11.2010.

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. 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 u/s

311 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

According to learned Counsel for the Petitioners, this was clearly impermissible as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated

8.10.2010 (P3) had granted only one opportunity.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

It may be noticed that the file in the case could not be traced out from the Record Room and the learned Magistrate has asked the Record

Keeper to trace out the same. Besides, the defence counsel i.e. counsel for the Petitioners had requested for an adjournment for cross examination

of the witness (Respondent-2), for which the case had been adjourned to 3.11.2010.

In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 (P5) in exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 CrPC. This petition is accordingly dismissed.