IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.34125 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Kumar Singh @ Ram Kumar Sharma, Son of Rajeshwar Singh, Resident of Village Silout, PS Maniyari, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== 2 11-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of framing charges dated 6.7.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 330 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case diary and the supplementary case diary, name of the petitioner has not been disclosed by the witnesses. It is said that during supervision the D.I.G. examined several witnesses and they have disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the supervision note of the D.I.G. cannot be taken into account for the purposes of charging the petitioner for the alleged offences. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the witnesses will be tested during the trial. These witnesses who have been examined by the D.I.G. are charge sheet witnesses and their evidence would need to be considered for holding that the petitioner is not involved or is innocent. Considering the submissions aforesaid, I do not think that this is a proper case in which this Court should intervene and quash the order refusing to discharge the petitioner. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Smt. Sheema Ali Khan, J)