IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22765 of 2010 THE UNION OF INDIA THRU. DY. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE REGIONAL UNIT RAJABAZAR, BAILEY ROAD, PS SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA – PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Chhote Lal Rai, son of Nand Lal Rai, Mohalla Mithapur, Gaya Line, PS Jakkanpur, Dist. Patna – Opp.Party. 3 11.8.2010 This application has been filed for modification of the order, dated 30.11.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36197/2009 on the ground that the accused persons, who have now been convicted in Special Case No. 26/2006, have been manufacturing records during the trial of the case. Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the petitioner Chhote Lal Yadav has wrongly submitted before this court that report of the seized articles indicated that Bhang was seized from the petitioner and not Ganja. It has further been stated that the petitioner tried to mislead the court inasmuch as he produced a report showing that the seizure was of Bhang. However, this court had not taken cognizance of the plea and submissions made on behalf of Chhote Lal Yadav, that the Judicial Magistrate should be recalled for the purpose of re-cross examining him on this point, rather the court ordered that the trial should be taken up on day to day basis. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order, dated 5.1.2009 would indicate that Chhote Lal Yadav had somehow or the other obtained the certification report of the case and was cross examining witness on the basis of that record. It is submitted that the record is not supplied to the accused persons and as such there seems 2 to be some mishandling of the records. If at all, there is mishandling of the record, it cannot be without the connivance of either the staff of the court or the counsel conducting the case on behalf of the Union of India. Since the petitioner is already convicted in this matter, I clarify that the Union of India (Prosecution) can bring this fact to the notice of the appellate court, if the defence is raised in the appeal. However, at this belated stage I am not inclined to get the verification done, specially when the accused is not in a position, being in custody, to defend himself. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)