Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 464 (PAT)

Birendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2012-03-16

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 330/98/04/07 arising out of Ramgarh (Nuaon) P.S. Case No. 131/1996 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 307, 302 / 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner who is one of the accused in aforesaid Sessions Trial for issuance of fresh summon for securing attendance of one of the Medical Officers namely S.K. Saraf. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for just decision in the case it was necessary to examine Dr. S.K. Saraf who examined one of the accused of the present case. It was submitted that there was case and counter case in between the parties. The case which was lodged as per the instance of accused persons of the present case was numbered as Ramgarh (Nuaon) P.S. Case No. 132 of 1996. In that case Dr. S.K. Saraf had examined injury of one of the accused of the present case, and as such, his examination was necessary. The order was passed on 24.08.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar has informed the court that though the impugned order was passed in the year 2009, till date, the case has not proceeded thereafter due to the pendency of the present case. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. 5. In the present case offences had taken place in the year 1996. Anyhow evidence of prosecution was closed on 28.01.2009, and thereafter, for about eight months the defence got the case lingered on one plea or the other, and finally, without producing any cogent evidence, a petition was filed on 10.08.2009 by the petitioner for summoning Dr. S.K. Saraf of one Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Varanasi, on the plea that in the counter case one of the accused of the present case was examined by the said Doctor. S.K. Saraf of one Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Varanasi, on the plea that in the counter case one of the accused of the present case was examined by the said Doctor. It further appears that the learned court below on the prayer of defence earlier had given indulgence by issuance of “Dasti Summon”, and at subsequent stage, a plea was taken that the said Doctor had refused to accept “Dasti Summon”, and as such, prayer was made for issuance of summon through court for securing his attendance. 6. After going through the impugned order, the court is of the opinion that such petition was filed only with a view to unnecessary linger the case and put a hindrance in early disposal of the trial at defence stage. From the order itself it is evident that for about eight months the case was got adjourned on one plea or the other. In cases of such serious offences, that too of such old nature, the learned Trial Court was not required to grant such indulgence. The prayer for issuance of summon through court for securing attendance of a Doctor who had got no concern with the present case has rightly been refused by the court by the impugned order which requires no interference. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. 7. At the time of hearing it was informed that due to pendency of the present case the trial has not proceeded after the impugned order was passed. The court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court was not at all required to stay the proceeding without any order of stay passed by this court. By an administrative instruction contained in G.L. No. 3 of 1963, Dated 15th April, 1963, it has already been made clear that if a party wants to assail an order of the court before a superior court, then in that event, at first instance, adjournment for fifteen days can be granted, and thereafter, in view of special reason, further seven days adjournment can be granted. It appears that instruction issued by this court, on administrative side, is not being followed by lower courts. It is made clear that for enabling a party to assail an order before the superior courts lower courts are required to strictly follow G.L. No. 3 of 1963, Dated 15th April, 1963, unless there is an order of stay by the superior courts. It is made clear that for enabling a party to assail an order before the superior courts lower courts are required to strictly follow G.L. No. 3 of 1963, Dated 15th April, 1963, unless there is an order of stay by the superior courts. As a matter of course, courts below are not required to grant adjournment or keep the matter pending only on the ground that a party has approached superior courts against an order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the courts below are directed to strictly follow the direction issued by this court on its administrative side vide G.L. No. 3 of 1963, Dated 15th April, 1963. 8. In view of the fact that the case is of the year 1996, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that, the trial may come to its logical end without any further delay. The court is required to conclude the proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below. 10. The Registrar General of this court is required to communicate this order to all the courts below for compliance of this order. 11. Let this order be placed before the Registrar General for its compliance.