CRR-868 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 120 Jagjiv Kumar Sharma State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 401/397 of Cr.P.C. laying challenge to order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib. Vide the said order, the learned Judicial Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 in the form of Criminal Revision Petition, is not maintainable in ter judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajamanickam of the factual petition pending adjudication b service having been effected upon the respondents and matter having been taken up before this Court on multiple occasions; this Court is not inclined to decline the petition in hand on account Court in its inherent jurisdiction directs for considering the petition in hand 868-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagjiv Kumar Sharma V/s Punjab and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The petition in hand is a revision petition filed under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C. laying challenge to order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib. Vide the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has decided the application under 11 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the instant in the form of Criminal Revision Petition, is not maintainable in ter judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajamanickam; 2009(5) SCC 153. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the instant petition pending adjudication before this Court since March, 2023 and the service having been effected upon the respondents and matter having been taken up before this Court on multiple occasions; this Court is not inclined to decline the petition in hand on account of maintainability a Court in its inherent jurisdiction directs for considering the petition in hand 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-868-2023 Date of decision: 29.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** The petition in hand is a revision petition filed under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C. laying challenge to order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib. Vide the said Magistrate has decided the application under 11 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the instant petition, filed in the form of Criminal Revision Petition, is not maintainable in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as as Sethuraman versus . However, keeping in view the entirety of the case in hand; especially the factum of the instant efore this Court since March, 2023 and the service having been effected upon the respondents and matter having been taken up before this Court on multiple occasions; this Court is not inclined to of maintainability alone. Ergo, this Court in its inherent jurisdiction directs for considering the petition in hand .2025 The petition in hand is a revision petition filed under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C. laying challenge to order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib. Vide the said Magistrate has decided the application under , filed ms of Sethuraman versus . However, keeping in view the entirety of the case in hand; especially the factum of the instant efore this Court since March, 2023 and the service having been effected upon the respondents and matter having been taken up before this Court on multiple occasions; this Court is not inclined to this Court in its inherent jurisdiction directs for considering the petition in hand AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-868 as having been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNS, 2023. merits thereof. 2. impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the testimony of the Sunil Kumar Joshi is essential for the just person who circumstances, the testimony of only material but absolutely essential for the just adjudication of the c Without his deposition, the defence of the petitioner cannot be fully established. Learned counsel has further contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision confers wide powers on the stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the deliberate non duly served adopting coercive steps that the impugned order is mere presumptio Court below that the petitioner was delaying the proceedings is misconceived as the delay, if any, was occasion evasive conduct of the witness. the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of 868-2023 as having been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNS, Now this Court proceeds to decide the petition in hand on merits thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the testimony of the Sunil Kumar Joshi is essential for the just person who has refunded the money to Ms. Ranjana Bhandari. In such circumstances, the testimony of the said witness i.e. only material but absolutely essential for the just adjudication of the c Without his deposition, the defence of the petitioner cannot be fully established. Learned counsel has further contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision confers wide powers on the Court to summon or recall any person at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the deliberate non-cooperation of the witness as duly served; it becomes the duty of the Court to ensure his presence by adopting coercive steps as per law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is argued that the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner was delaying the proceedings is misconceived as the delay, if any, was occasion evasive conduct of the witness. Moreover, the Court below h the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of 2 as having been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNS, Now this Court proceeds to decide the petition in hand on Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the testimony of the witness namely Sunil Kumar Joshi is essential for the just decision of the case as he was the refunded the money to Ms. Ranjana Bhandari. In such the said witness i.e. Sunil Kumar Joshi is not only material but absolutely essential for the just adjudication of the case. Without his deposition, the defence of the petitioner cannot be fully established. Learned counsel has further contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision summon or recall any person at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be penalized cooperation of the witness as once the witness was it becomes the duty of the Court to ensure his presence by law. Learned counsel has further submitted unsustainable in law, being based on ns and conjectures. It is argued that the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner was delaying the proceedings is misconceived as the delay, if any, was occasioned only on account of the Moreover, the Court below has dismissed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of as having been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNS, Now this Court proceeds to decide the petition in hand on Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. witness namely decision of the case as he was the refunded the money to Ms. Ranjana Bhandari. In such Sunil Kumar Joshi is not ase. Without his deposition, the defence of the petitioner cannot be fully established. Learned counsel has further contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision summon or recall any person at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be penalized once the witness was it becomes the duty of the Court to ensure his presence by law. Learned counsel has further submitted unsustainable in law, being based on ns and conjectures. It is argued that the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner was delaying the proceedings is only on account of the as dismissed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-868 the case. hand is entreated for. 3. respondent No.2 the petitioner has been granted more than sufficient opportunities to examine the witness i.e. reflects that from 28.10.2022 till 22.02.2023, several dates were fixed specifically for defence evidence. Furthermore, at least summons to the said witness were returned producing him, the petitioner himself moved exemptions applications on his behalf. According to learned counsel, the trial has been pending since 2015 and the prosecution concluded its evidence after considerable delay. The matter is now at the stage of final arguments and entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would defeat the very object of speedy trial. by way of instant petition is dismissal of the instant petition is 4. perused the available record. 5. merits of the case in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178 868-2023 the case. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing for the pondent No.2, while supporting the impugned order, has contended that the petitioner has been granted more than sufficient opportunities to examine the witness i.e. Sunil Kumar Joshi. According to learned counsel, the record reflects that from 28.10.2022 till 22.02.2023, several dates were fixed specifically for defence evidence. Furthermore, at least summons to the said witness were returned producing him, the petitioner himself moved exemptions applications on his According to learned counsel, the trial has been pending since 2015 and the prosecution concluded its evidence after considerable delay. The r is now at the stage of final arguments and entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would defeat the very object of speedy trial. Thus, the grievance now sought to be raised by the petitioner by way of instant petition is wholly misconceived. dismissal of the instant petition is entreated I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. Before further delving into the rival contentions as also the merits of the case in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under: “8.4 As an epilogue to the above ru emerge: (I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: 3 aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in as well as counsel appearing for the , while supporting the impugned order, has contended that the petitioner has been granted more than sufficient opportunities to examine Sunil Kumar Joshi. According to learned counsel, the record reflects that from 28.10.2022 till 22.02.2023, several dates were fixed specifically for defence evidence. Furthermore, at least on two occasions, summons to the said witness were returned as duly served, yet instead of producing him, the petitioner himself moved exemptions applications on his According to learned counsel, the trial has been pending since 2015 and the prosecution concluded its evidence after considerable delay. The r is now at the stage of final arguments and entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would defeat the very object Thus, the grievance now sought to be raised by the petitioner wholly misconceived. Accordingly, entreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have Before further delving into the rival contentions as also the merits of the case in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in as well as counsel appearing for the , while supporting the impugned order, has contended that the petitioner has been granted more than sufficient opportunities to examine Sunil Kumar Joshi. According to learned counsel, the record reflects that from 28.10.2022 till 22.02.2023, several dates were fixed two occasions, yet instead of producing him, the petitioner himself moved exemptions applications on his According to learned counsel, the trial has been pending since 2015 and the prosecution concluded its evidence after considerable delay. The r is now at the stage of final arguments and entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would defeat the very object Thus, the grievance now sought to be raised by the petitioner Accordingly, the I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have Before further delving into the rival contentions as also the merits of the case in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab mination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-868 6. whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for summoning Though Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re evidence appears to the Court to be essential But at the same time, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent 868-2023 (i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “ decision of the case.” (ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Cou the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. (iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused. (iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter. (v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. (vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” The short question that arises for cogitation before this Court is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the application of the titioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for summoning Sunil Kumar Joshi as a defence witness. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person a evidence appears to the Court to be essential But at the same time, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent 4 The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of dence “appears to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according easons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” The short question that arises for cogitation before this Court is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the application of the titioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Sunil Kumar Joshi as a defence witness. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person as a examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. But at the same time, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of appears to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a rt cannot be construed as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. down any such exhaustive guide- Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according easons, in accordance with basic principles of our The short question that arises for cogitation before this Court is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the application of the titioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Sunil Kumar Joshi as a defence witness. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person as a lready examined, if his the just decision of the case. But at the same time, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-868 miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is equally settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused for filling up lacunae in the defence. 7. granted sufficient opportunities to produce Joshi. From October, 2022 till February 2023, the matter remained fixed for defence evidence on multiple dates. witness on at least two occasi producing the aforesaid witness, the petitioner himself moved exemption applications programme and secondly citing illness itself indicates that the petitioner was aware of the unwillingness of the said witness to appear 22.02.2023 permitted recording of testimony video conference, the sa fact that the Court waited till 04:30 PM. In the considered opinion of this Court, the failure of the witness to appear physically or virtually, despite repeated opportunities, cannot be brushed aside as 8. ought to have take coercive steps is untenable. Once the summons were duly served and exemption was sought on behalf of the witness by the petitioner himself, there was no occas steps. Rather it was bounden duty of the petitioner to ensure his own witness. Having failed to do so despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner cannot now shift the burden upon the Court. Althoug under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power 868-2023 miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is equally settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused for filling up lacunae in the defence. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has sufficient opportunities to produce Joshi. From October, 2022 till February 2023, the matter remained fixed for defence evidence on multiple dates. Summons were issued to the said witness on at least two occasions and were duly served. Instead of producing the aforesaid witness, the petitioner himself moved exemption applications –– firstly on the ground that the witness was busy in a political programme and secondly citing illness of the said witness itself indicates that the petitioner was aware of the unwillingness of the said witness to appear before the Court. Furthermore, when the Court below on 22.02.2023 permitted recording of testimony video conference, the said witness did not join the proceedings despite the fact that the Court waited till 04:30 PM. In the considered opinion of this Court, the failure of the witness to appear physically or virtually, despite repeated opportunities, cannot be brushed aside as The contention of the learned counsel that the Court below ought to have take coercive steps is untenable. Once the summons were duly served and exemption was sought on behalf of the witness by the petitioner himself, there was no occasion for the Court to adopt coercive steps. Rather it was bounden duty of the petitioner to ensure his own witness. Having failed to do so despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner cannot now shift the burden upon the Court. Althoug under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power 5 miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is equally settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused for filling up lacunae In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has been sufficient opportunities to produce the witness namely Sunil Kumar Joshi. From October, 2022 till February 2023, the matter remained fixed for Summons were issued to the said ons and were duly served. Instead of producing the aforesaid witness, the petitioner himself moved exemption firstly on the ground that the witness was busy in a political of the said witness. This conduct itself indicates that the petitioner was aware of the unwillingness of the said . Furthermore, when the Court below on 22.02.2023 permitted recording of testimony of the said witness through id witness did not join the proceedings despite the fact that the Court waited till 04:30 PM. In the considered opinion of this Court, the failure of the witness to appear physically or virtually, despite repeated opportunities, cannot be brushed aside as a mere lapse. The contention of the learned counsel that the Court below ought to have take coercive steps is untenable. Once the summons were duly served and exemption was sought on behalf of the witness by the ion for the Court to adopt coercive steps. Rather it was bounden duty of the petitioner to ensure the presence of his own witness. Having failed to do so despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner cannot now shift the burden upon the Court. Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is equally settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused for filling up lacunae been Sunil Kumar Joshi. From October, 2022 till February 2023, the matter remained fixed for Summons were issued to the said ons and were duly served. Instead of producing the aforesaid witness, the petitioner himself moved exemption firstly on the ground that the witness was busy in a political nduct itself indicates that the petitioner was aware of the unwillingness of the said . Furthermore, when the Court below on of the said witness through id witness did not join the proceedings despite the fact that the Court waited till 04:30 PM. In the considered opinion of this Court, the failure of the witness to appear physically or virtually, despite The contention of the learned counsel that the Court below ought to have take coercive steps is untenable. Once the summons were duly served and exemption was sought on behalf of the witness by the ion for the Court to adopt coercive presence of his own witness. Having failed to do so despite repeated opportunities, the h, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-868 must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner especially in the absence of any cogent justification. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court belo perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference Court. It is borne out from the record that the trial in the instant case is pending since the year 2015. The complainant than thirty dates for recording its evidence while the petitioner has already availed nine opportunities for defence. Entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would not serve the ends of justice but rather frustrates the mandate of speedy trial. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 9. (i) Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, does not call for any interference and the instant (ii) shall not have any effect on th proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. (iii) September Ajay 868-2023 must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner especially in the absence of any cogent justification. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference Court. It is borne out from the record that the trial in the instant case is pending since the year 2015. The complainant than thirty dates for recording its evidence while the petitioner has already availed nine opportunities for defence. Entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would not serve the ends of justice t rather frustrates the mandate of speedy trial. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, does not call for any interference instant petition is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. September 29, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 6 must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner especially in the absence of any cogent justification. In the considered opinion of this Court, w has rightly dismissed the application. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. It is borne out from the record that the trial in the instant case is pending since the year 2015. The complainant’s side has consumed more than thirty dates for recording its evidence while the petitioner has already availed nine opportunities for defence. Entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would not serve the ends of justice t rather frustrates the mandate of speedy trial. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: ted 20.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, does not call for any interference petition is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove e merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner especially in the absence of any cogent justification. In the considered opinion of this Court, w has rightly dismissed the application. No illegality or by this Court. It is borne out from the record that the trial in the instant case is ’s side has consumed more than thirty dates for recording its evidence while the petitioner has already availed nine opportunities for defence. Entertaining application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated stage would not serve the ends of justice t rather frustrates the mandate of speedy trial. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court ted 20.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, does not call for any interference Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove e merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.30 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document