IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36789 of 2008 BIBHISHAN SINGH @ BHABHIKSHAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 30.9.2008 Heard. The court does not feel inclined to review its earlier order contained in Annexure-1 which is an order dated 11.3.2008 passed in Cr.Misc.Petition No.45202 of 2007. The learned Judge who is trying Sessions Trial No.575 of 2007 has blamed the prosecution for not producing the witnesses so that the trial could be expedited. It is true that the provision of Cr.P.C. for Sessions trial does indicate that the court may issue summons or any processes as per the prayer of the prosecution, but that never absolves a Presiding Judge of his duties to impart justice, quickly and fairly. The learned Judge appears not keeping himself up dated with the development of law, else, he would have mentioned the above in his rejection order and could have resorted to action as directed by the Supreme Court in Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 270 and that order of the Supreme Court appears in consonance with the provisions of Section - 2 - 170(2)Cr.P.C. Let the learned Judge, i.e., Additional District Judge, F.T.C.No.5, Sitamarhi be directed to issue a notice to the officer-in- charge of Sitamarhi police station appending thereto a list of witnesses who are yet to be examined for remaining present with them on all dates of hearing. It is expected of the learned Judge of F.T.C.No.5, Sitamarhi to dispose of the above noted Sessions Trial as soon as possible and within a maximum period of six months from the date of the receipt/production of the present order with a report to this Court. The petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )