IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40626 of 2008 1) Mahendra Sah, son of Late Dhari Sah, 2) Chandradeo Sah, son of Late Bhikhari Sah, 3) Baleshwar Sah, son of Jogi Pandit, 4) Ram Ganesh Sah, son of Rajendra Sah, 5) Rajendra Sah, son of Late Lal Dhari Sah, 6) Nandlal Sah alias Nandu Sah, son of Late Ram Charita Sah, 7) Yogi Pandit son of Late Lakhan Pandit, 8) Jaldhari Sah, son of Late Aghanu Sah, 9) Sita Ram Sah, son of Late Jugu Sah, 10) Budhan Sah, 11) Laxman Sah, both sons of Asharfi Sah, village Nanaura,PS Belsand (Runisaidpur), District Sitamarhi – Petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 26.7.2011 HeardMr. J.N. Sinha, counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. representing the State. This application has been filed challenging the order, dated 22.7.2008 passed in S.T. No. 244/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC VII, Sitamarhi. It is a well reasoned order in which the court has stated the facts relating to this case and the counter case and the manner in which the case was conducted. The court below has appreciated the fact that the case and the counter case was not fixed on the day as both were pending before different courts. It is a fact that the evidence was closed in this case due to non-production of the prosecution witnesses. It would appear that the court has taken no steps whatsoever to ensure the production of witnesses and closed the evidence. The prosecution then filed an application for being allowed to produce its witnesses which remained pending for three years. The court below has taken into consideration this fact along 2 with the fact that the prosecution should pay a cost of Rs.150/- to each of the defence witnesses and has noted that no further adjournment would be granted in this case. It is about time that the case should be closed as it is old one and I thus direct the office to send a copy of this order expeditiously by Fax to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC VII, Sitamarhi. This application is, thus, dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)