IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53267 of 2007 MADAN JHA, S/o Harish Chandra Jha, R/o Brahampura, P.S. Manigachchi, District – Darbhanga ……. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……….. Opp. Party ----------- 2 12.2.2009 Heard Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.B.S. Pahepuri, learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner, who is one of the two FIR named accused of Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2000 arising out of Manigachchi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2000 is that order dated 12.10.2007 passed therein by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Darbhanga, permitting the prosecution to examine the informant is illegal and therefore not sustainable. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that two years after the prosecution evidence had been closed the informant came and filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. for his examination in the said trial which was allowed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the informant had sufficient knowledge of the prosecution of the case as his father had been duly examined, cross examined and discharged and, therefore, it could not be presumed that the informant had no knowledge about the progress of the case. It is not stated any where if the father and the informant were living together. It also cannot be presumed that merely because the father had been examined the son would have knowledge of the father being examined in Court. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that although - 2 - summons were issued to the informant no service report of such summons is available on the record. Since no service report is available on the record there can be no presumptive assumption that the summons was served on the informant, and court below in the circumstances was fully justified in permitting the examination of the informant. I find no apparent illegality in the impugned order which is upheld. There is no merit in this application which is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)