Judgment R.N.Lal, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order of Shri C. S. Lal, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Shariff in Sessions Trial No 65/80 and 1/82, dated 17th February, 1985 by which the prosecution was closed on the ground that even after giving two adjournments to the prosecution. Material Exts. and other witnesses were not produced in the court. 2. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that A. S. I., Hainaut Police Station in the district of Nalanda had been transferred because of the law and order problem and that caused delay and hence, material Exts could not be produced. 3. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that as per impugned order, last prosecution witness was examined on 23-3-1983 and thereafter, the prosecution went on taking adjournments, the court was pleased to write two D. O. Letters to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda for the production of material Exts. but of no avail. Lastly, on 17-1-1985 the court closed the prosecution case and adjourned the case and examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the prosecution had been granted very liberal adjournments for about 22 months and not a single witness or material Exts. was produced before the trial Court. The accused were kept on tenter-hooks during all these months. So, the learned Court was constrained to close the prosecution case in the interest of justice. 4. Looking into the impugned order it appears that a petition has been filed for adjournment for production of material Exts. in the case and also taking action against the Officer-in-Charge, Harnaut Police Station. The last prosecution witness was examined on 23-3-1983 and since then two adjournments were granted, even two D. O Letters were written to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda but with no result which clearly created an impression on the mind of the court below that the prosecution was no longer interested or did not possess even evidence to produce witnesses during the trial. While accused were made to run to the court many times In my view, the learned Court below had rightly closed the prosecution case in the interest of justice. It is difficult for court to keep the accused running and giving adjournments to satisfy the whim of the prosecution for such a long period. While accused were made to run to the court many times In my view, the learned Court below had rightly closed the prosecution case in the interest of justice. It is difficult for court to keep the accused running and giving adjournments to satisfy the whim of the prosecution for such a long period. Rather 1 think two adjournments were a bit on the high side. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as accused cannot liable to be held guilty, I will not keep running to the court at the whims of the prosecution only. The expeditious disposal of the prosecution case is right to the accused and court cannot remain so looker only. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I find that there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.