IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8589 of 2010 ANIL KUMAR BARNAWAL SON OF LATE BRAHMDEO PRASAD BARNAWAL, RESIDENT OF BHATNI, P.S. BHATNI, DISTRICT DEORIA, U.P. ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHOWKIDAR MUNRIKA CHAUDHARY SON OF SHEO PUJAN CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAMAKIA, P.S. BHOREY, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 1.12.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court No.II, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2000, by which it had reopened the case of the prosecution and allowed examination of witnesses. From the order impugned, I find that two months had been given to the prosecution to adduce all the witnesses, but the present petitioner has delayed the case for a further ten months by filing the present application and had he not done so the trial is concluded by now. Since it is the trial court alone which is competent to conclude that the examination of the witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the trial court is directed to fix an outer time limit of two months for examination of the witnesses and with the cost found suitable imposed on each of the witnesses. It is made clear that if the witness for any reason does not appear on the date so fixed the trial court shall not 2 wait for his examination. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )