Patna High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2023
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.194 of 2020
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.13 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2004 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ramesh Kumar Son of Late Narsingh Roy Resident of Village-Naya Tola,
Bariyarpur, (Sri Sohan Roy Ka Tola), P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-Naya Tola,
Madhopur Old Bye Pass Road, Bakhtiyarpur, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District-
Patna.
3. Rinku Kumar Son of Rajeshwar Roy Resident of Village-Kachra Dehri, P.S-
Chandi, District-Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : __06-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed
by informant for setting aside the judgment/ order of acquittal
dated 16.01.2013 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh,
Additional Sessions Judge, III, Barh, Patna in S. Tr. No. 888 of
2008, arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2004,
lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 379 and 307 of
the I.P.C., 1860 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act by which,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023
2/25
the charge-sheeted accused persons, i.e. respondent no. 2 and 3
had been acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned judgment/ order of acquittal has been passed in
utter violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna, as the learned Trial Court
miserably failed to satisfy itself that a valid service of notices,
summons, processes were served to the witnesses during the
trial. He further submits that without serving the notices to the
prosecution witnesses and without examining the same, the
evidences of the prosecutions were closed and judgment/ order
of acquittal has been passed which is wholly erroneous,
unlawful and bad in the eye of law and, therefore, fit to be set
aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the order of acquittal dated 16.01.2013 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 888 of 2008 as after the amendment in Cr.P.C., 1973, i.e. by
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, liberty
has been granted to the victim to prefer appeal in case of
acquittal. He submits that petitioner is informant and being a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023
3/25
victim has filed the said criminal appeal alongwith limitation
petition annexing the entire order-sheet of the Sessions Trial No.
888 of 2008 on 16.03.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing the said
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 has pleased to called for a report
from the Lower Court vide its Order No. 6 dated 26.03.2019 as
to "whether there happens to be presence of execution report on
the record or not ?" Another report was also called for i.e. record
from the Dy. S.P., Barh with regard to action, if any taken in
pursuance of D.O. Letter No. 347 dated 22.12.2011 or not. From
the perusal of Order No. 8 dated 09.04.2019 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019, it is evident that no execution
report with regard to service of summons to the witnesses is/ are
available on the record and only, therefore, this Hon'ble Court
has pleased to issue notice to the accused/ respondents. Counsel
also submits that it is also true that during pendency of the trial,
one accused, namely, Rajendra Prasad Yadav (R-2) died on
26.06.2015and, therefore, his name was expunged from the list of the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide Order No. 18 dated 24.09.2019 passed in Cr. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 4/25 Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019, this Hon'ble Court has pleased to grant liberty to the appellant of the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 (present petitioner) to transpose his memo of appeal as a petition purported to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering all the legal questions involved therein including the question of limitation that from the date of knowledge of the judgment, the appeal was preferred within period of 90 days and as such, there happens to be no question of limitation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that commitment of criminal case before the Session being Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008 had taken place on 05.06.2008. After commitment, appearance of the accused persons were made vide order dated 10.09.2008. Charges have been framed in this case before the Sessions Court on 02.11.2009, thereafter summons was issued upon the PWs but there is no service report in general or in the light of specific Rule, namely, Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna present on the record and the Session Court has closed the evidence on 13.06.2012. Finally, judgment for acquittal has been passed on 16.01.2013. Counsel submits that from the perusal of entire order-sheet of the Trial Court begins from order Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 5/25 of commitment which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, it is evident that although, the processes were ordered to be issued upon the prosecution witnesses but whether it was served upon the prosecution witnesses including the informant/ petitioner or not are not clear. Trial Court order-sheet is completely silent over the same. Counsel submits that it is his specific point that neither any notice nor summon nor any process was/ were ever served upon the informant or other prosecution witnesses for their deposition in support of prosecution.
8. There is no service report on record of the case upon the PWs. The case has been closed without any witness, except one examination of formal witness who was advocate clerk.
9. Counsel further submits that on 05.10.2018, when informant went to Civil Court to inquire about progress of his case, then it came to his knowledge that judgment of acquittal has already been passed on 16.01.2013. Thereafter, he had applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment/ order on 09.10.2018 which was made available to him on 02.11.2018 upon which, he rushed to Patna on 26.11.2018 and preferred criminal appeal on 17.12.2018 under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 6/25 1973. It is his contention that the limitation shall always be counted from the date of knowledge and the petitioner has preferred appeal within the period of limitation, which has been considered by this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 and vide Order No. 18 dated 24.09.2019, this Hon'ble Court has pleased to held that there happened to be no question of limitation. The prayer of the counsel is that there is a gross violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and due to non-service of notices/ summons/ processes to the informant/ petitioner and the prosecution witnesses including informant/ petitioner, failed to adduce evidences which resulted into acquittal of criminal of Sessions Trial and gross injustice has taken place to the petitioner being a victim.
10. Learned senior counsel alongwith counsel on record who appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 (initially but after death and expunging the name of respondent no. 2 from the record of the case, he is representing only to respondent no. 3) has not filed any counter affidavit in this case but submits that there is no fault of the accused persons as the accused persons had never misused the privilege of bail and they have due respect for the Court and law. He submits that on Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 7/25 each and every date, they have appeared either in person or through their counsels. For sending or service of notice, the accused persons are not at fault. Counsel put emphasis that the case of non-sending of summons/ notices/ processes or non- acknowledgment of the service report in the record of the case is basically the failure of the prosecution/ police agency or the Court. Counsel submits that for the failure of the other persons/ authorities/ Court, the respondent may not suffer.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that any order for re-trial or fresh summoning of the witness will delay the trial and infringe the right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to them. He further submits that from record, processes were issued at least three times to call the witnesses but for non-service of summon/ notice/ process, accused persons are not responsible and they should not suffer for the fault of State or Court.
12. Learned counsel for private respondent relied on the following judgments, namely:
(i) (2007) 7 SCC 394, Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty.
(ii) (2020) 15 SCC 140, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Hero Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 8/25 Honda Motors Limited.
(iii) 2007 AIR SCW 4998, Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty.
(iv) 2011 CRI. L. J. (SCC) 60(62), Balwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab.
(v) 2013 CRI. L. J. (SC) 3092, State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Vs. Mahesh G. Jain.
(vi) AIR 2010 SC 2352, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi).
(vii) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 334, Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
and submits that on the basis of the judgments, it comes out that nobody should be allowed to suffer for the fault of Court as it is well settled that act of Court should not prejudice anyone. He submits that the case is of 2004. It related back to stale matter and after lapse of 19-20 years, no re-trial, remand summoning and PWs shall be available after long gap.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that this Hon'ble Court has to do the substantial justice. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 9/25
14. In response thereof, counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, there is an allegation of attempt to murder, which is a serious offence and for it, sessions trial was going on and the petitioner being the informant is ready to produce all witnesses within a fixed period of time and it shall take not more than two months. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is ready to appear in this case on day to day basis, as from the record, it is crystal clear that there are gross violation of the established procedure and only due to this reason, their evidences could not take place.
15. Upon going through the pleadings of the parties, the specific law and the judgments are necessary to be discussed here.
16. It is admitted that the date of occurrence is 18.06.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that commitment of criminal case before the Session being Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008 was made on 05.06.2008. After commitment, appearance of the accused persons were made vide order dated 10.09.2008. Charge has been framed in this case before the Sessions Court on 02.11.2009, thereafter summons was issued but there is no service report either in general or in the light of specific Rule, namely, Rule 18 of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 10/25 Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Session Court has closed the evidence on 13.06.2012 and finally judgment for acquittal has been passed on 16.01.2013 in which, the charge-sheet accused persons, i.e. respondent no. 2 and 3 had been acquitted.
17. The first judgment on which respondent has relied is the case of Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty reported in (2007) 7 SCC 394, the matter was related to commission of offence under Sections 294 and 323 of the I.P.C. in which, incident took place on 02.02.1996. On 05.02.1996, the complainant filed case. The witnesses were examined on 29.03.1996 and 24.07.1996 and cognizance was taken under Sections 294 and 323 of the I.P.C. on 08.08.1997 and summons were issued fixing next date for appearance on 19.12.1997. The defence was taken plea that punishment for offences under Sections 294 and 323 are six months and one year respectively and cognizance has been taken after one year from the date of the commission of the offence, as such, it is barred by limitation under Section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the present case was allowed and criminal proceeding has been quashed. The said prayer was allowed.
18. Here in the present case, the case is not related Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 11/25 to Sections 294 and 323 of the I.P.C., rather it is a sessions triable case. The present case is sessions triable case and for sessions triable cases, Section 468 is not applicable, as well as the facts of the present case is totally different from the facts of the judgment mentioned above. Therefore, the said judgment has no applicability in the present case.
19. The second case on which respondent relied is the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Hero Honda Motors Limited reported in (2020) 15 SCC 140 but this case has no applicability in the present matter as this judgment is relating to custom and excise matter. Therefore, this ruling is not applicable.
20. The third judgment on which respondent has relied is 2007 AIR SCW 4998 is nothing but the same case of Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty about which discussion has already taken place.
21. The fourth judgment reported in 2011 CRI. L. J. (SCC) 60(62), Balwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab has no applicability in the present case because the issue involved in this case is at all different from the present case.
22. The fifth judgment is State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in 2013 CRI. L. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 12/25 J. (SC) 3092, where it has been held that power to remit case to Appellate Court to be exercised in exceptional circumstances as order of remission brings in procrastination of criminal justice dispensation system.
23. In the said case, accused was acquitted on the ground that order of sanction is invalid in law but simultaneously, the Court has dealt with other facets also. Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that while hearing an appeal against conviction can scan the evidence and weigh the probabilities. It is incumbent on the High Court to analyse the evidence, deal with the legal issues and deliver a judgment. Thereafter, hold that incline to remit the matter to the learned Trial Judge, there would be another round of hearing before the learned Trial Judge, which is avoidable. It has to be kept upper most in mind that remit to the Trial Court has to be done in very rare circumstances for it, brings in procrastination of criminal justice dispensation system which is not efficient.
24. Here in the present case, the question of sanction as like that of above mentioned judgment are not there, rather the present case is non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The question of scanning Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 13/25 of evidence is also not involved in the present case as the present case has been decided without any evidence as summons were never served upon the prosecution witnesses which is the backbone of criminal justice dispensation system. Hence, the said judgment shall not help the respondent.
25. The sixth case is Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in AIR 2010 SC 2352. It has been held that in administration of criminal justice system, the possibility of error of law, appreciation of evidence or other serious violations are difficult to be ruled out in its entirety. The higher Courts in exercise of their appellate or original jurisdiction may find patent errors of law or fact or appreciation of evidence in the judgment which has been challenged before them. Despite this, what is of significance is that, the Court should correct the error in judgment and not normally comment upon the Judge. The possibility of taking correct view is part of the system. The judicial propriety and discipline demand that stricture or lacerating language should not be used by the higher Courts in exercise of their appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.
26. In this case, the question of error of law, appreciation of evidence and other violations in the judgment Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 14/25 have been raised. Whereas, in the present case, such questions are not involved, rather the only question involved is that whether a judgment which has been passed without evidence of prosecution witnesses to whom service never made and there is gross violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Therefore, the said judgment shall also not help the respondent in any manner.
27. The seventh judgment on which respondent has relied is the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 334 and the question involved is "whether a convict/ prisoner who has been released on temporary parole/ emergency parole, pursuant to the decision of high-powered committee constituted as per the orders passed by this Court in SWM (C) No. 1 of 2020, such parole period shall be counted towards the total period of sentence of the convict/ prisoner ?"
28. This question is not involved in the present case, therefore, finding of this judgment has no applicability at all.
29. Upon going through the arguments of the parties, their pleadings and the judgments, this Court reached on the conclusion that the judgments/ orders under challenge has Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 15/25 been passed without taking all the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. The order-sheet of the Trial Court indicates that the process to call witnesses have been issued but they were never been served upon the prosecution witnesses, in result, those witnesses could not present before the Court and case has been closed resulting into acquittal of the accused persons. Petitioner has raised the gross violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which states as follows:
"18. In every [such] case the serving Court shall satisfy itself that a valid service has been made or that there has been a failure of service and shall certify such opinion to the High Court with the reasons in case of failure. The certificate may be endorsed on the process and it shall be accompanied by the return of service or of failure to serve the notice and the affidavit or solemn declaration of the serving officer."
30. With a view to decide this case, one judgment i.e. Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. Reported in (2018) 11 SCC 129 is the most relevant about which this Hon'ble Court has already acknowledged in its Order Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 16/25 No. 18 dated 24.09.2019 in which the question of re-trial has been tested by the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and inhibit travesty of justice, as it has been held in the judgment which is stated below:
"The Supreme Court is in complete agreement with the approach of the High Court in the manner in which the issue of retrial has been dealt with in the facts of this case.
Normally a retrial has to be ordered by the appellate court while dealing with the validity and correctness of the judgment of the trial court as this power is expressly conferred upon the appellate court by Section 386 Cr.P.C. However, in exceptional circumstances, such a power can be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 or by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. There are no shackles to the powers of the constitutional court under these provisions, except self-imposed restrictions laid down by the courts themselves. But for that, these powers are plenary in nature meant to do complete justice and to inhibit travesty Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 17/25 of justice. Therefore, the Supreme Court herein is largely in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the present case was one of those exceptional cases where possibility of witnesses getting hostile because of inducement or threats cannot be ruled out.
For achieving a fair trial which is the solemn function of the court, role of witnesses assumes great significance. This fair trial is possible only when witnesses are truthful as "they are the eyes and ears" of the court. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that trial is conducted fairly where witnesses are able to depose truthfully and fearlessly."
31. This Court further held that:
"15. After taking note of the aforesaid facts and submissions, the High Court pointed out that moot question was as to whether it could order retrial in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With this poser, the High Court has analysed the said issue under the following heads:
(i) Concept of fair trial.
(ii) Hostile witnesses -
a menace to the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 18/25 criminal justice system.
(iii) Exercise of writ
jurisdiction for the
purpose of retrial.
(iv) Sections 311 and
391 Cr.P.C. and Section
165 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
16. The High Court has given a detailed
discourse on the necessity to have a fair trial, as a backdrop of the rule of law as well as for dispensation of criminal justice. Taking cognizance of so many judgments of this Court wherein the concept of fair trial with the sole idea of finding the truth and to ensure that justice is done, and extensively quoting from the said judgments, the High Court has emphasised that free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also remarked that criminal justice system is meant not only for safeguarding the interest of the accused persons, but is equally devoted to the rights of the victims as well. If the criminal trial is not free and fair, then the confidence of the public in the judicial fairness of a judge and the justice delivery system would be shaken. Denial to fair trial is as much Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 19/25 injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. No trial can be treated as a fair trial unless there is an impartial judge conducting the trial, an honest and fair defence counsel and equally honest and fair public prosecutor. A fair trial necessarily includes fair and proper opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence.
17. The High Court has also highlighted that the role of a judge in dispensation of justice, after ascertaining the true facts, is undoubtedly very difficult one. In the pious process of unraveling the truth so as to achieve the ultimate goal of dispensing justice between the parties, the judge cannot keep himself unconcerned and oblivious to the various happenings taking place during the progress of trial of any case. It is his judicial duty to remain very vigilant, cautious, fair and impartial, and not to give even a slightest of impression that he is biased or prejudiced, either due to his own personal convictions or views, in favour of one or the other party. This, however, would not mean that the Judge will simply shut his own eyes and be a mute spectator, acting like a robot or a Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 20/25 recording machine to just deliver what is fed by the parties. Although, the Courts are required to remain totally unstirred, unaffected and unmoved amidst the storms and tribulations of various corrupt and flagitious activities happening around them involving the police, the prosecutor or the defence counsel or even the whirlwind publicity of a high profile case which affects the public opinion and motivates media trial, but it cannot be expected of them not to deprecate or condemn such misdeeds of those culprits who are hell bent to pollute the stream of judicial process.
18. It is not necessary to reproduce those copious quotes from various judgments which have been incorporated by the High Court.
However, the following passage from the judgment in Ajay Singh needs reiteration as it sums up the entire fulcrum astutely:
"1. Performance of judicial duty in the manner prescribed by law is fundamental to the concept of rule of law in a democratic State. It has been quite often said and, rightly so, that the judiciary is the protector and preserver of rule of law. Effective functioning of the said sacrosanct duty has been entrusted Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 21/25 to the judiciary and that entrustment expects the courts to conduct the judicial proceeding with dignity, objectivity and rationality and finally determine the same in accordance with law. Errors are bound to occur but there cannot be deliberate peccability which can never be countenanced. The plinth of justice dispensation system is founded on the faith, trust and confidence of the people and nothing can be allowed to contaminate and corrode the same. A litigant who comes to a court of law expects that inherent and essential principles of adjudication like adherence to doctrine of audi alteram partem, rules pertaining to fundamental adjective and seminal substantive law shall be followed and ultimately there shall be a reasoned verdict. When the accused faces a charge in a court of law, he expects a fair trial. The victim whose grievance and agony have given rise to the trial also expects that justice should be done in accordance with law. Thus, a fair trial leading to a judgment is necessitous in law and that is the assurance that is thought of on both sides. The exponent on behalf of the accused cannot be permitted to command the trial as desired by his philosophy of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 22/25 trial on the plea of fair trial and similarly, the proponent on behalf of the victim should not always be allowed to ventilate the grievance that his cause has not been fairly dealt with in the name of fair trial. Therefore, the concept of expediency and fair trial is quite applicable to the accused as well as to the victim. The result of such trial is to end in a judgment as required to be pronounced in accordance with law. And, that is how the stability of the credibility in the institution is maintained.""
32. This Court is of the view that from the records of the case as well as from the report of the police authorities, it is crystal clear that witnesses could not come before the Court only due to the reason that notices/ summons/ processes were never served upon them. The petitioner who is the informant in this case assures through his lawyer that he is ready for adducing evidence as well as witnesses of the case, which is the demand of the free and fair trial.
33. It transpires from the record that vide order dated 05.06.2012, Trial Court has ordered to issue notice upon the witnesses and fixed next for 13.06.2012.
34. Office note column indicates that notice has been issued to the witness on 11.06.2012. There was no service Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 23/25 report on the record but on 13.06.2012 i.e. two days after sending notice upon the witness, the evidence for prosecution had been closed on 13.06.2012. This closing of prosecution witness just within two days from the date of sending notice as well as without service report or within two days and without any service report is basically gross injustice and it is due to this reason, this Court is inclined to interfere in the judgment/ order dated 16.01.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, III, Barh, Patna in S. Tr. No. 888 of 2008, arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2004. It is in the interest of justice that proper opportunity be granted to the petitioner in this case as there is gross violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
35. It is also true that accused persons were regularly appearing before the Trial Court but from the record, it transpires that last summon has been issued on 13.06.2012 and prior to lapse of the required time, the evidence has been closed which creates serious doubt in the mind of this Court that at the instance of some interested persons, this foul play had taken place and the petitioner had no occasion to ratify his grievances, as he received knowledge of closing the case in the year 2018, till then, the case was already closed and just within the period Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 24/25 of limitation, he has moved to this Court for the said wrong/ illegality. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is hereby set aside the judgments/ orders, dated 16.01.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, III, Barh, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008, arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2004 and direct the Trial Court to take evidence of the prosecution witnesses on day to day basis. The Trial Court shall assure the information be provided to the witnesses through proper service by way of special messenger within two months from the date of communication of order to the Court and thereafter close the evidence within three months thereafter and pass judgment within one month thereafter. The petitioner and prosecution shall make effort to produce PWs within three months.
36. Both accused persons are directed to appear before the Court within two months from today. In case, delay shall be made at the instance of accused (respondents) of the present criminal writ petition, process shall be issued against them and upon arrest, they shall not be released on bail till disposal of this case. But if, they appear before the Court within two months from today, the Court shall grant them bail to his satisfaction, so that accused may not evade their appearance Patna High Court CR. WJC No.194 of 2020 dt.21-06-2023 25/25 during trial.
37. With this observation, the present criminal writ application stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 01-05-2023 Uploading Date Transmission Date