Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 651 (PAT)

Raghunath Prasad Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2002-05-23

M.L.VISA

body2002
Judgment 1. This application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 5.3.2002 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, closing the case of prosecution. 2. The objection raised by office that this application should have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not accepted and ignored. 3. While hearing bail petition of opposite party No. 2 in Cr. Misc. No. 32063 of 2001 this Court on 25.1.2002 directed the court below to conclude the trial within a period of one month from the date of production/receipt of a copy of the order on day-to-day basis. 4. The case of petitioner who is complainant before the court below is that the order dated 25.1.2002 of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32063/2001 was received by the court below on 4.2.2002 on which day petitioner was cross examined by defence and his cross examination continued till 14.2.2002. On 15.2.2002 and 16.2.2002 . prosecution witnesses came from Calcutta for examination but the Presiding Officer of the court below was on leave from 15.2.2002 to 18.2.2002 and therefore witnesses could not be examined and they returned to Calcutta. On 19.2.2002 prosecution witnesses were again present and one of the witnesses was to prove the invitation card of marriage ceremony which had been exhibited as Ext. 5 in course of inquiry but defence made an oral protest and did not allow the witnesses to prove the document and the court below directed to file a petition for permission to prove the document which was filed on the same day i.e. on 19.2.2002 but the case was adjourned to 20.2.2002. On 20.2.2002 PW-2 was examined and discharged and next day i.e. 21.2.2002 was fixed for examination of two doctors but a petition by defence was filed that they should not be examined although they were examined during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 22.2.2002 was clearance day of the court, 23.2.2002 was holiday and 24.2.2002 was Sunday. On 20.2.2002 PW-2 was examined and discharged and next day i.e. 21.2.2002 was fixed for examination of two doctors but a petition by defence was filed that they should not be examined although they were examined during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 22.2.2002 was clearance day of the court, 23.2.2002 was holiday and 24.2.2002 was Sunday. On 25.2.2002 PW-3 was examined and then on 26.2.2002 the prosecution produced Rai Ramesh Prasad as a witness and his examination was objected by defence and again a petition was filed to allow him for examination and to prove some documents exhibited during the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on request of defence the case was adjourned to 27.2.2002 on which day case was adjourned to 28.2.2002 when learned defence lawyer refused to cross examine PW-4 and thereafter PW-5 was examined and then a petition on behalf of defence was filed for closing the case in terms of order dated 25.1.2002 of this Court. On 2.3.2002 State filed rejoinder stating all the aforesaid facts and pointing out the default of the defence but the trial court closed the case of prosecution and refused to examine further witnesses. Further case of petitioner is that although case was fixed for hearing on day-do-day basis but every day trial was taken up after 3 PM and so a very short time was allowed and defence utilized the same by filing petitions and in lengthy cross examination and there is no default on the part of prosecution. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.3.2002 passed by the court below closing the case of prosecution. 5. Today application of opposite party No. 2 for bail has also been taken up and he has been granted bail. By order dated 25.1.2002 trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a month by fixing hearing of the case on day-to-day basis. 5. Today application of opposite party No. 2 for bail has also been taken up and he has been granted bail. By order dated 25.1.2002 trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a month by fixing hearing of the case on day-to-day basis. Apart from the fact that defence objected examination of most of the witnesses produced by prosecution and consumed time in raising such objections the fact that everyday case was taken up after 3 PM as stated by petitioner in his application clearly shows that order dated 25.1.2002 by which this Court directed the court below to conclude the trial witnin a month by fixing the case on day-to-day basis has not been complied with in its true spirit because sufficient time in the period of one months time fixed by this Court was not utilized in hearing of the case because it was taken up after 3 PM. Besides this, the aforesaid order was passed considering the fact that petitioner was in jail custody. Now the petitioner has been ordered to be released on bail. In the result, this revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.3.2002 closing the case of prosecution is hereby set aside and the court below is directed to give opportunity to prosecution for examining witnesses. Since the hearing of case has been fixed by the Court below every day after 3 PM no time limit is fixed for conclusion of trial but then trial court will take steps to dispose of the case as early as possible.