IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41416 of 2010 SONALAL SAHNI @ SONA SAHNI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 12.01.2011. Heard. The show cause filed by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari is simply unsatisfactory and the worst was that it was annexing a report which was obtained from the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The officer-in- charge of the police station was making a report in response to the wireless message received by him from the office of the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari as per Annexure-A that the Chaukidar had been asked to produce the witnesses before the trial court. The Superintendent of Police appears accepting that report, else, why he should annex that report as supporting document to his show cause. This indicates that the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari was an officer who did not have even the basic knowledge of the provisions of the Cr.P.C., else, how could he accept that particular report which was 2 against the provisions of Section 170 Cr.P.C., particularly, its sub-Section(2) which requires the production of the witnesses by the officer-in-charge of the police station by which a case could have been investigated into as the law pre- supposes that the officer-in-charge had obtained bonds from the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to appear before the Magistrate(which could mean courts of law)for supporting the charge. Not only that, the Superintendent of Police was pointing out to this court in paragraph-9 of his replies that the name of a third witness in the summons which was probably issued by the trial court was not correct. This court hardly wants to point out to the Superintendent of Police that a counterfoil of the chargesheet has to be preserved as part of the police record of the police station which had investigated into the case and that is supposed to contain all details as regards the contents of a report under Section 173(2)Cr.P.C. Even if the trial court or its employee had erred in noting down the name of the witness, the police cannot refuse 3 producing the witnesses named in the chargesheet, by virtue of the provisions, I have already quoted just now. It clearly indicates that the police is not interested in production of the witnesses for concluding the trial of Sessions Trial No.592 of 2006 arising out of Kesariya P.S.Case No.29 of 1999 which compels this court to direct the release of the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, East Champaran, Motihari in the above noted case. The competence of the officer, I have taken cognizance of and I direct that the same be placed before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna who shall place it before authority supposed to evaluate the merits of the officer so as to granting him credition in matters of promotion, etc. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)