Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16777 of 2011 (4) dt.29-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16777 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bhagwati Prasad Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh S/O Late Saligram Singh, R/O Vill. -Maina, P.O. -Maina Gram, P.S. -Mahishi, Distt. –Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Nishant Kumar S/O Shiv Shankar Singh 3. Shiv Shankar Singh S/O Nathuni Singh 4. Dinu Singh S/O Shiv Shankar Singh 5. Babloo Singh S/O Shiv Shankar Singh 6. Ranju Singh W/o Babloo Singh All residents of village-Dhabouli, PO + PS-Saurbazar, District-Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwanath Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 29-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by learned A.S.J., F.T.C.-III, Saharsa in S.T. No. 115 of 2006 for offences under [STATUTE] . It appears from the record that an application was filed by the informant under section 311 Cr. P.C. making a prayer that due to inadvertence the Protest-cum-Complaint petition which was filed by the petitioner and the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. could not be exhibited during the trial and a prayer was made for their exhibition to secure ends Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16777 of 2011 (4) dt.29-08-2012 of justice. The court has recorded that the case is at the advance stage and while passing the order/judgment, he would consider the same, if so required. When the court below himself has recorded that he would look into the matter while passing the judgment, if so required, and the case is at the advance stage, in this view of matter, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the order impugned in view of the fact that the court below himself has protected the interest of the petitioner. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.