IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9335 of 2010 1. DHARAMDEV BHAGAT 2. HIRA LAL BHAGAT BOTH SONS OF RAM LACHHAN BHAGAT 3. MUKESH BHAGAT 4. KRISHNA KANT BHAGAT @ KRISHNA NANDAN BHAGAT 5. RAJESH BHAGAT ALL SONS OF DHARAMDEV BHAGAT ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – GHANSHYAM PAKARI, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI ------ PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BAIJNATH PANDEY, SON OF LATE JULUM PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – GHANSHYAM PAKARI, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT. – EAST CHAMPARAN, AT MOTIHARI ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 02.12.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, in Trial No. 124 of 2009 by which he in exercise of his power under Section 323 Cr. P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions. Since the present case is of counter case of Pipra P.S. Case No. 38 of 1999 and the Informant is an accused and the said case is pending before the Sessions Judge. I see no illegality in the order since it is established principle of law that either the judgment has to be kept in abeyance or the case has to be tried in the same court. However, in my view since the case had concluded whereafter it was committed to the court of Sessions, the entire exercise of examining the witnesses shall not be initiated afresh by the Sessions Judge and it would be sufficient if he passes 2 the final judgment on the evidence already adduced after the trial of the counter case is concluded. Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2009 will take expedient steps for examining the witnesses and conclude the same within a period of six months. With these observations, the application is disposed of. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)