IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4096 of 2010 SUDHAKAR PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Kishori Singh, village Varispur Patti, PS Bhagwanpur, Dist. Vaishali – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 2.1.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I, Vaishali in S.T. No. 143/2001. The court had asked the PW 6, the doctor on 10.11.2009 to produce the admission register or any other document to show that the concerned doctor had treated the victim. Dasti summon was issued to PW 6 with respect to production of the admission register of the injured Sudhakar Pd. Singh, PW 4. A doubt was raised with respect to the injury report in view of the fact that it was issued 27 days after the said occurrence. After receipt of the Dasti summon the doctor concerned allegedly sent the admission register with a letter in which he prayed to the court concerned that the admission register may be examined by the court and thereafter returned to his agent as he would be requiring it in the usual course of his business. Till this point, this court finds no difficulty, if the register was produced before the court, and the counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, would get an opportunity to examine the same, a photo copy would have been made and kept on record, and the court could have recorded its findings in presence of the counsels concerned. However, 2 on the date fixed the agent did not arrive and even after repeated call the register was not produced. The court found that the doctor was in contempt of court’s order. However, the court has referred the matter to the Bihar State Medical Council, Patna which is the competent body to deal with such matter. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is aggrieved by the portion of the order where the court has observed that “as far as merit of the case is concerned it is observed that the non production of the injury register and other relevant documents as per this court’s order dated 10.11.09 by PW 6 shall be adversely viewed in course of argument against the prosecution.” I may clarify that the court has merely stated that non- production of the register and other documents would render the medical evidence produced as doubtful. If the counsel for the parties shows / demonstrates otherwise, it is always open for the court even till the last minute to change its view. I, thus, find no illegality or anomaly in the order impugned nor do I find that the comment really is prejudging the issue. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)