IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21622 of 2002 SURAJ PRASAD & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7. 19.8.2010. Heard. The petition seeks quashing of order of cognizance dated 29.9.2001 passed by A.C.J.M.,Chapra in Chapra Mufassil P.S.Case no.217 of 1999 by the order dated 29.9.2001, the A.C.J.M. took cognizance of offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC and orders the summons to be issued against the petitioners. The main plank for seeking the quashing of the said orders which were passed by the A.C.J.M on 29.9.2001 and by the learned Sessions Judge on 10.6.2002 was a pleader commissioner’s report which was appointed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra while hearing and disposing of Cr.Revision No.413 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears appointing a pleader commissioner and seeking a report on the ownership of the plot or the exact plot from which the sesam trees were cut and taken away. When my attention was drawn to Annexure- 5, the report of the pleader commissioner, I - 2 - simply wanted the learned counsel appearing before me on behalf of the petitioner to show the court a provision under which a criminal court is empowered to appoint pleader commissioner and direct him to hold local inspection or make measurement as could be done by a civil court in a civil proceedings. The whole exercise appears carried out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with some particular purpose and not for doing substantial justice by passing the order in Cr.Revision No.413 of 1999 because that order is not before this court for being examined I leave the matter at that. As regards the summoning order dated 29.9.2001 and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 10.6.2002, the same could not be quashed on the basis of a bogus unlawful pleader commissioner’s report Annexure-5. The petition appears of no merit. The same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )