Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 186 (PAT)

Arun Kumar @ Neshar Miyan v. State Of Bihar

2009-02-05

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.3.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 820 of 1999 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna City, in Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 93/08 under Sections 497 and 376 of the I.P.C. on the petition of the informant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the argument was over in the case and the case was fixed for judgment, the informant filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for reopening the case. The trial court vide order dated 5.3.2008 observed that, in fact, the cross examination of the informant had not yet been concluded. In the circumstances he granted five chances to the prosecution to examine all its witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has been used for harassing accused persons. Furthermore, if witness does not come in spite of the issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrant of arrest the accused cannot be harassed by allowing petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at such belated stage of judgment In respect of his submission he relied upon a decision in a case of Keshav Chaudhary and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 2000(1) P.C.C.R. 765. 5. None of the parties is able to inform this Court as to what happened in the learned trial court in the last nine months. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs the court in seisin of the case to dispose of the trial if the same has not yet been disposed of within five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the prosecution is not able to examine any further witnesses within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, the evidence would be deemed to be closed as sufficient opportunity had been given to the prosecution in the past. 7. With the aforesaid direction the order of the trial court is modified to the extent mentioned above. 8. Let this order to communicated to the. trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. 9. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.