IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18627 of 2009 DINESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF RAMBALI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAINA, P.O.+P.S. CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. -- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM KAWAL SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAINA, P.O.+P.S. CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. --OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 18.12.2009 The petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by Assistant Session Judge (F.T.C. IV) in S. Tr. No. 233/92 arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 96/88 by which the Court after considering all aspects of the matter has rejected the application of the petitioner, to call for the document allegedly filed before the A.S.P., Rohtas. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court and this Court vide order dated 18.3.2008 contained in annexure-2 directed that “the Court below is directed to give one opportunity to defence preferably 15 days‟ time to get the document in question (marked „X‟ for identification) brought on record. If the petitioners fail to bring on record the original application within 15 days, Court below shall proceed to hear the argument and dispose of the case in accordance with law at the earliest.” In compliance with the order of this Court, the Court below issued notice to the A.S.P., Rohtas to produce documents in question. The A.S.P., Rohtas produced certain documents which are allegedly not the documents which the petitioner wanted to rely upon. In my opinion, this Court is very kind to call for the documents. In any event the order was passed on 18.3.2008 and more than a year later, the petitioner has not been able to produce the documents. This Court cannot give any further time to the petitioner (defence) to produce any documents referred to by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner should at least be permitted to mark exhibits the documents which were produced by the A.S.P., Rohtas. I see no difficulty in allowing the prayer of the petitioner subject to whatever objections raised on behalf of the prosecution with respect to marking those documents as exhibits. This application is thus dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, j.)