IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23123 of 2007 KIRTAN YADAV, Son of Late Parsuram Yadav, Resident of Village Bikrampur Balia, Tola Nagira, P.S. Sakri, District- Madhubani …… ……. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Balram Yadav, Son of Late Moti Yadav, Resident of Village Najara, P.S. Sakri, District- Madhubani. 3. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Parshuram Yadav, Resident of Village- Najara, P.S. Sakri, District-Madhubani. …….. ……. ….Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Ravi Ranjan , Advocates. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. ------------ 5 16.10.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Criminal Revision No.175 of 2006 whereunder while dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner, he has confirmed the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. being Case No.MR-491 of 2005, whereby he has converted the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conversion has been made after the expiry of the prescribed period of 60 days, i.e. the statutory life time of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. - 2 - The grievance of the petitioner is ill founded in view of the fact that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 14.7.2005 and by order dated 14.9.2005 the said proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was very much within the period of 60 days which is statutory life time of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in view of Sub- section (4) of Section 144 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, I find no apparent illegality in the impugned order so as to call for any interference by this Court under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application being without merit is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)