IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46443 of 2008 AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. The State of Bihar ----------- 3. 3.12.2008 Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The truck which was owned by the petitioner was found transporting 4.60 quintals ganja and such contraband substance was recovered. The complaint petition is the basis of the prosecution and that contains the materials including the statement of the father of the petitioner indicting the petitioner in the commission of the offence by stating that the petitioner had fallen in bad company and in bad habits and, as such, in bad trade. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the rejection order earlier passed. However, it is a case on complaint and it is contended that for about nine months or so the prosecution has not produced any witness and the petitioner is in custody for about 11 months and during that course only four witnesses were produced under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court is concerned about the speed of the trial which is through a petition of complaint. The learned Judge, who could be trying Customs (N.D.P.S.) Case no.41 of 2007 as a Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, could be reminded to exercise his jurisdiction under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by imposing appropriate cost against the prosecution for non-production of the witnesses. A - 2 - specified direction may be issued for production of witnesses on day to day basis so as to completing trial and delivering the judgement within a further period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )