IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28426 of 2009 DINESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE SHATRUGHNA CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAINAGAR, BALDIHA, P.S.- JAINAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI.---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MUNTI SAH, SON OF RAM JATAN SAH 3. JANARDAN SAH, SON OF RAM JAHAN SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAINAGAR (BALDIHA TOLA), P.S.- JAINAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 28.8.2009 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 by which the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. The charges were framed on 9.8.2005 and the petitioner was asked to produce his witnesses. Thereafter on 26.9.2005 and 30.12.2005, petitioner was asked to bring these witnesses and on 20.1.2006 opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the witnesses although the petitioner was present in Court but none of the witnesses were produced in this case. The prosecution evidence closed and thereafter the petitioner has filed this application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he should be permitted to produce his witnesses. The application was rejected which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision application which was also rejected on 3.2.2009. 2 It is apparent from the order passed by the Revisional Court that the complainant- petitioner examined only three witnesses before framing charges and took 22 days to examine them. After framing of charges he did not examine a single witness although the Court gave him opportunity to examine the witnesses. No doubt the Court has to deliver justice and give opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate its case, but this does not mean that the complainant-petitioner can take his own time for producing the witnesses and not follow the procedure as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel refers to a case reported in 2005(3)PLJR 227 in the case of Maheshwari Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar. In that case it appears that on the date when the application was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the witnesses were present in Court and ready to depose and as such this Court interfered in the matter and ordered that the complainant-informant should be permitted to examine the witnesses. However, in this case even on the date when the 3 application was being heard, witnesses were not produced and as such the facts of Maheshwari Prasad case differs with the facts of present case. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and as such I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. This application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)