IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33421 of 2008 Manikant Singh, Son of late Bhagwat Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Mohaddipur @ Shahpur, PS Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Navkant Singh, Son of late Bhagwat Prasad Singh. 3. Smt. Sadhna Singh, Wife of Navkant Singh. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are resident of village Mohaddiput @ Shahpur, PS Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur. --- Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate ----------- 3 6.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. This case is very old one of the year 1995. Cognizance has been taken in 1996. For one reason or the other, the trial was delayed. Finally on 4.9.2005 the evidence began. The Court passed an order on 25.2.2006 closing the evidence, as the complainant was not co-operating with the Court. On 23.3.2006 an application was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which was finally allowed with the condition that all four witnesses were to be produced on 22.4.2006. Two witnesses were produced but Sanjay Kumar Rai was partly examined as witness was not produced, which according to the opposite party no. 2 was the deliberate act of the complainant. Counsel for the opposite party submits that the attitude of the complainant would be apparent on perusal of the order sheet. It appears that they really do not want to proceed with the case rather they want to harass the accused persons which should 2 not be appreciated by any court. The orders dated 25.4.2006, 4.5.2006, 2.6.2006 and 6.7.2006 would reveal that in fact time petitions were being filed for one reason or the other. The evidence was finally closed on 6.7.2006 which led the petitioner to file an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 31.3.2008. As a last chance, this Court directs as follows: A) The petitioner will produce within two weeks Sanjay Kumar Rai for cross-examination. No excuse whatsoever shall be accepted by the Court for non-production or non-cross examination of this witness. B) The Court thereafter on every alternative day will fix the date for appearance of witnesses who will be cross- examined on the same date. In this way all the four witnesses that are to be examined in this case should be examined within a period of two weeks. If the petitioner or his counsel for whatever reason does not stick to the schedule, no further leave will be given by this Court much less by the Court below. Time petition on the ground that the counsel is not well, will also not acceptable in view of the fact that the junior/senior counsel can conduct the cross-examination. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating this order to the Court concerned, within a period of one week. The order should be complied with 3 within a period of one week, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. Since both the parties are here, the Court below will on production of this order pass orders as mentioned above and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)