IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7195 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR SON OF LATE GITA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHENDRAPUR, P.S. HATHIDAH, DISTRICT-PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS CLERK IN REFERAL HOSPITAL AT MOKAMAH, DISTRICT-PATNA. --PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY For the Petitioner : M/s Shailendra Kr. Sinha & Anil Kumar Sinha For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP 3 28.04.2010 Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Abhay Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. This application has been preferred seeking quashing of order dated 11th January, 2008 passed in Cr.Rev. no. 379 of 2004 confirming the order of the court below passed in Mokamah P.S. Case no. 247 of 2002 refusing to discharge the petitioner. As it appears from the first information report that allegation against the petitioner is of breaking seal of one Almirah kept in the office which was sealed during surprise inspection of the superiors. My attention was drawn towards 2 letter no.588 dated 09th December, 2002 issued by Dr. R.N. Payare, Incharge Medical Officer, Referal Hospital, Mokamah, Patna, reporting to Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna, stating therein that seal of the concerned Almirah appears as it is. It is submitted at Bar that proceeding before the court below is as yet at the initial stage, charge has not been framed. It appears from the order of the trial court as well as revisional court in Cr.Rev. No. 379 of 2004, which is under challenge, that the documents produced by the petitioner along with his application seeking discharge were not considered on the ground that they are to be considered at the end of trial when the petitioner may have opportunity to produce the documents in defence. If the defence is in a position to produce some clinching evidence at the very initial stage of the trial that is hearing on the point of charge, such documents may be considered to avoid precious time of the court. The Apex Court in the case Sri Satish Mehra V. Delhi Administration & Ors.: 1997 BBCJ (SC) 53, has held that 3 if the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue why should court shut it out saying that such document be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceeding. It is undisputed position that the documents produced by the defence were not considered by both the courts below. Hence, it seems desirable that the trial court will consider the documents produced on behalf of the defence and pass appropriate order. After hearing both the sides, again it is further made clear that this liberty is given only on this submission that trial is yet to commence. In case after framing the charges trial has commenced, the documents may be considered by subsequent stage according to law, and the trial must be expedited. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad