IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1308 of 2010 Shankar Pandey, Son of Late Chandradeo Pandey, Resident of Village Bareja, P.O. – Bareja, P.S. – Daudpur, District – Chapra (Saran). …..Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Biswajeet Pandey, Son of Vishwanath Pandey, Resident of Village-Bareja, P.S. – Daudpur, District-Saran. 3. Om Prakash Mishra @ Om Prakash Pandey, Son of Krishna Bihari Mishra, Resident of Village – Daldali Bazar, P.S. – Chapra Town, District – Chapra. …..Respondent. For the Appellant : Mr. Shatrughna Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent : APP. ----------- 06/ 06.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for the State and Counsel for the private respondents. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1994, whereby the accused/respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted on the ground that no witness has turn up for examination. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the purpose of law has been defeated in this case by the trial court because there was no summons to any witness including the informant and on account of the non-service of summons neither informant nor any witness could appear and the prosecution case was closed. It has also been submitted 2 that on this ground alone that summons were not served the judgment appears to be mala fide. We have perused the judgment, the occurrence is of 24.04.1992. According to the prosecution case, the fardbeyan was given by this appellant Shankar Pandey in Sadar Hospital, Chapra and it was alleged that after taking meal on 24.04.1992 he was sleeping at his door. His father and deceased Uma Shankar were also sleeping adjacent to him when he woke up his brother Uma Shankar was on the door, meanwhile, he heard the sound of firing and proceeded towards his door and found that his brother was scuffling. The blood was coming out from his head. The informant could not witness any person and his father being an old man could not understand anything. Thereafter, the informant took his brother to hospital and during course of treatment his brother died within five minutes. On the basis of above fardbeyan Daudpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1992 was registered. In course of investigation, name of the accused persons transpires. One of the accused namely, Ashok Kumar Chaubey 3 absconded whose trial was separated. The First Information Report was registered against unknown. There was enough time for the informant to get information regarding the occurrence. None naming of any of the accused in the First Information Report itself is an indication that the implication was later on. However without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, even after summons or bailable warrants were ordered to issue on different occasions, show cause and demi-official letters were also issued for production of witnesses. Therefore, this is not a case in which no process was issued rather process were issued and the court has done its duty by issuance of the process which are required for bringing the witnesses to the box. Even non-bailable warrants to witnesses were issued but the prosecution failed to bring any witness. The court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants. Not only that demi-official letters were also issued. The court has done its best to see that it gets assistance from the prosecution but it failed. The court has complied with the required procedure. 4 This court has finds no merit in this appeal against acquittal. It is accordingly dismissed. kksinha/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)