IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.711 of 2008 GYANDEO SHARMA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARUN KUMAR SINGH For the Appellant :Mr.Shiva Shanker Sharma For the State :Mr.G.P.Jaiswal ----------- 7. 06.02.2009 Heard Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal. Also heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned Sr. counsel for the State. Nobody appeared on behalf of O.P.No.2. Both the parties agree that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The present appeal arise out of the order dated 20.6.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge,IX Patna in Cr.Revision 184 of 2004 (Gyandeo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar). The aforesaid Cr.Revision was preferred by the accused of Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case no.213 of 1999 instituted under sections 467,468,471,419,420 and 120B IPC assailing the order taking cognizance of the offence(s). As the case number indicates the revision was filed way back in the year 2004, and the matter remained pending. The son of the informant of the said case namely Bimal Kumar approached this Court by filing Cr.W.J.C.No.362 of 2007 seeking a direction upon the revisional court to dispose of the said revision application expeditiously. The matter was considered and under order dated 20.8.2007 this Court was pleased to direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,IX Patna to dispose of the revision - 2 - application at the earliest without giving unnecessary adjournments to the parties. The question as to whether the son of the informant who was already dead can maintain such an application was left open to be decided at the appropriate stage by the trial court. Subsequently, it appears that the present appellant (accused of Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No.213 of 1009) filed an application on 22.5.2008 praying for initiation of a proceeding under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ground taken in the said application appears to be that although the informant of the case, namely, Satya Narayan Mishra had died on 15.3.2007, but his counsel (O.P.No.2 herein) continued to file Hazris on his behalf and, as such there was fabrication of false documents which were used in the judicial proceedings necessitating an enquiry as contemplated under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned court below has considered the said application of the accused and rejected the same. While rejecting the said application filed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court observed as under: “Heard both sides in extenso and perused the case record and it transpires therefrom that this instant revision has been filed by this petitioner revisionist Gyan Deo Sharma against the State of Bihar and one Satya Narain Mishra as o.p.no.2 against the cognizance order passed by learned C.J.M. Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No.213/99 U/s 467,468,471,419,420,120 B IPC. And admittedly the said Satya Narain Mishra is now dead. But his son is observing the proceeding of the court who at all is not a party at present. So far as the filing of attendance is concerned it is not going to affect the merits of the case. So much so the Hazri is usually filed by the advocate’s - 3 - clerks. And as per the order dated 20.08.07 the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to direct this Court to dispose of this Criminal Revision application at the earliest without giving unnecessary adjournments to the parties vide Cr.W.J.C No.362/07. But as evident from the record the petitioner-revisionist is not willing that this Criminal Revision application be disposed of at the earliest and so an extraneous matter has been agitated upon which to my mind is devoid of any merit. Resultantly, the same stands rejected. The case is fixed for hearing on 30.06.08. The petitioner-revisionist is directed to come prepared on the said date. The learned Addl.P.P. is also directed to co-operate with the court, failing which the necessary order shall be passed.” This Court, after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that no illegality as such has been committed by the learned trial court in rejecting the said application filed by the present petitioner (accused of Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No.213 of 1999). This Court finds no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )