IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5628 of 2010 1.NIRMAL KUMAR JHA @ NIRMAL JHA son of Kripa Kant Jha 2.Kirpa Kant Jha son of late Bachha Jha 3.Anmol Jha son of Saryug Jha 4.Murli Jha son of saryug Jha 5.Subhash Chandra Jha @ Subhash Jha son of late Krishna Kant Jha 6.Mahendra Jha son of late Krishna Kant Jha 7.Nagendra Jha son of late Krishna Kant Jha 8.Binod Jha son of Krishna Kant Jha 9.Anmol Kumar Jha son of Kirpa Kant Jha 10.Phul Kumar Jha son of Kirpa Kant Jha 11.Dileep Kumar Jha son of Kirpa Kant Jha 12.Shiyaram Ram son of Kallo Ram 13.Murlidhar Jha @ Chhedi Jha son of late Bachha Jha 14.Bishwanath Jha son of late Bidya Nand Jha 15.Shyamanand Jha son of late Kamla Kant Jha All are resident of village-Belasaddi, P.S.-Kumarkhand, at present P.S Sri Nagar, Dist.-Madhepura. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.2.2010. Heard Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State. The petitioners who are accused in Kumarkhand P.S. Case No.19 of 1988 (Sessions Trial No.32 of 1989) have challenged the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Madhepura, whereby prayer for prosecution to get postmortem report exhibited was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the order sheet it is evident that on several occasions opportunity was granted to the prosecution to produce postmortem report as well as for examining the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination. Even on one occasion Additional Public Prosecutor made a prayer to close the prosecution case. 2 Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that opportunity given to the prosecution to get postmortem report exhibited amounts to allowing the prosecution to fill up lacuna which is not permissible in law. I have examined the record and perused the impugned order. From the order impugned it is evident that learned trial judge has observed that for the purpose of exhibiting the postmortem report, at least one opportunity can be granted to the prosecution. The learned court has exercised its power conferred under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. I am of the view that for the ends of justice it was necessary to get the postmortem report exhibited and, as such, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, I may observe that the learned trial court may take steps to conclude the trial at an early date. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)