JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.2.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Special Case No. 26 of 1995. By the said order, the learned Judge has rejected the petition dated 22.4.1997 filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the record including order passed in Case No. 71C of 1996 of Government of Bihar (Home) Special Department which was in relation to the petitioners detention under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that for just decision in the case it was necessary to summon the record of the petitioners detention, as indicated above, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has incorrectly rejected the petition. It was further submitted that the learned Judge has incorrectly recorded that record of preventive detention was not having any relevance with the present case i.e. Special Case No. 26 of 1995. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 3. Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner is an accused for an offence relating to recovery of huge quantity of Ganja and in the case more than twelve persons were taken into custody. He further submits that by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner the learned court below has not committed any error. 4. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have examined the impugned order and the materials available on the record. Prima facie, I do not find any defect in the order impugned. This Court is of the opinion that the petition dated 22.4.1997 was mainly filed with an object to delay the commencement of the trial. The said petition was filed even before framing of the charge. The stage at which the petition was filed was not the appropriate stage. Moreover, records relating to detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were not having direct bearing for disposal of the present case. The said petition was filed even before framing of the charge. The stage at which the petition was filed was not the appropriate stage. Moreover, records relating to detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were not having direct bearing for disposal of the present case. The present case will depend on the basis of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has informed the court that after the order, trial has already commenced and one witness was examined. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this case and the petition stands rejected. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the case is of the year 1995, besides rejecting the petition, it is desirable to direct the concerned court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment.