IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9318 of 2010 KADIR MIAN @ MD.GULAM KADIR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner: Shri Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate For the State : Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP 3/ 7.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the 4th occasion. Last time, his prayer was heard in Cr. Misc. No. 28374 of 2008 in which, a time frame of one and half year for concluding the trial from the date of framing of the charges was fixed by this Court. That order was passed on 17.7.2008 and in spite of that, the learned Judge took about seven months to frame charges on 26.2.2009. It was expected that the trial could have been concluded by now. But, in a period of one year and some months till today, what was the achievement of the trial judge is that he could examine a solitary witness out of nine cited in the charge sheet and the orders passed by him in S.T. No. 468 of 2006 from 24.3.2010 to 13.5.2010 indicate that he took three dates by way of granting three adjournments for completing cross examination of P.W. 1. The Court is feeling 2 quite some pain in its heart on seeing the competence of a judge who is in the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge as regards the conduct of the trial in a case in which accused is in custody. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directs that no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted by a court and the trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible and once the examination of witnesses had proceeded, it should have continued from day to day basis until and unless the witnesses in attendance have been examined. The same provision further points out that if any party seeks unnecessary adjournment or postponement of the trial, then it shall be saddled with an appropriate cost. The whole bunch of the orders passed by the learned judge has been annexed to the present petition and he appears to be a mute spectator to his own proceeding and appears to have been hijacked by the submissions made by the respective parties for grant of adjournments. He does not appear having grip over the proceedings, so much so, that even the defence took liberty with him and got adjournment as and when it wanted, as is evidently clear from three adjournments granted for the cross 3 examination of P.W. 1. It is high time that the judges of the lower court may remind themselves that efficiency is one of the hallmarks for which a judge is respected. This is also a hallmark for continuing a public servant in his office and inefficient public servant could be proceeded against in the light of Rule 74 of Bihar Service Code. It may not be understood by a judge of the court that inaction of the class as appears exhibited by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran could be viewed by the court as an example of inefficiency as also a matter detrimental to public policy and the Court decides to take up the case for retirement of the judge under section 74 (b) of Bihar Service Code. The learned Judge, in his report, has not pointed out as to when did he examine P.W. 1. The Court could know this from the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned judge was probably attempting to get away from the gaze of this Court as regards his inefficient conduct of the proceedings, else it was expected that he should have been honest in putting down the state of his record correctly before this Court. The High Court could not 4 be happy with such conducts. The Court further finds that the Judge does not identify his own teeth and powers which are created by the Code of Criminal Procedure for administering justice and further does not know how to utilize those powers for procuring attendance of those witnesses else why should he be so meek in exercising those powers. Parties cooperate when judge wishes them to cooperate. The court is anguished and it does not have faith that the trial could be concluded by the Judge in six months. As such, it directs the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran to direct the Officer Incharge of Shikarpur Police Station to produce the witnesses of Shikarpur P.S. Case no. 61 of 2006 (S.T. No. 468 of 2006) in the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran on day to day basis so that the trial is concluded within a period fixed by the judge. The petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation/direction. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)