CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.43134 OF 2006 ( In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) JANKI SHARAN MAHTO, Son of Surya Narain Mahto, Resident of Village Ajnaulm, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur. ..............Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KRISHNA PRASAD, Son of not known, S.D.O. Dalsingsarai, Samastipur 3. RAJENDRA PASWAN, Son of Nunu Lal Paswan, Village Purbi Ajnaul, Ward No. 7, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur. ...........Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Mira Kumari, Advocate For the State. : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. * * * * * P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA * * * * * Akhilesh Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 25.08.2006 passed in Trial No. 1747 of 2006 arising out of Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 87 of 2005 passed by Sri Jai Ganesh Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalsingsarai, refusing the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through a petition dated 05.07.2006. 3. During course of arguments, by virtue of 2 Annexure-2 i.e. Para- 35 of the case diary learned counsel for the petitioner tried to laid emphasis that during investigation no illegality was found while organizing the meeting of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat and apart from the above it is submitted that from the impugned order it does not appear that court below has considered the materials collected during investigation and mentioned in the case diary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor after initial hesitation was left with no option, but to concede that impugned order is not a speaking one. 4. When one petition seeking discharge is filed by the accused persons, the trial courts are required to pass speaking order mentioning some materials prima facie supporting the allegations, but they cannot discharge their legal obligation by passing a non-speaking and evasive order. 5. Since much time has already been lapsed and learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to make this court aware whether charges have been framed and witnesses have been examined before the trial court. 6. Considering the above, only in the event of 3 non commencement of trial the court below is directed to provide an opportunity of fresh hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order on the prayer of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further made clear that even if one single witness is examined no fresh hearing or order is required but in that event court below must proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial at the earliest. With the above observation and liberty this application stands disposed of. Patna High Court Dated : 09th November, 2010 Praveen/- N.A.F.R. ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)