IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30057 of 2008 Vidya Devi, wife of Tejnarayan Pd. Singh, village Abhimanwa Bhakhri, PS Kalyanpur, Dist. East Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Shashibhushan Singh, son of Uday Narayan Singh, village Rulee, PS Majhawlia, Dist. East Champaran. 3) Md. Aftab Alam, son of Md. Shafiaullah, 4) Md. Sanaullah, son of Woli Ahmad, 5) Ajiphurr Rahman, son of Munsi Husen Ansari, 6) Parwej Alam, son of Md. Alam, 7) Jado Rai, son of Dhemal Rai, 8) Jotik Rai, son of Sitaram Rai, 9) Motilal Prasad, son of Janki Prasad, 10) Vishwanath Sahni, son of Guli Sahni, 11) Ramdular Rai, son of Jagdish Rai, 12) Baijnath Mahto, son of Ramaghya Mahto, 13) Beandra Prasad Yadav, son of Ramkhelawan Rai, 14) Shailendra Kumar, son of Jadunandan Pd. 15) Braham Deo Rai, son of Suraj Rai, all of village Kalwari Majhariya, PS Addapur, Dist. East Champaran. 16) Nagendra Pd. Shrivastawa, resident of Baghee Velwa, PS Ghorasahan Katib, Abar Registration Office, Ghoradano, PS Ghoradano, East Champaran. 17) Upendra Kumar, son of Yadunandan Prasad Rai, village Kalwari Maghariya, PS Addapur, Dist. East Champaran. 18) Pramod Kumar alias Parsuram Singh, son of Janardan Singh, village Rulhee, PS Manjhawlia, Dist. East Champaran – Opp. Parties. 6 4.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. This application is directed against the order, dated 18.3.2008 and 12.6.2008 passed in Trial No. 353/2007/337/2008 by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari. This case relates to forging of several sale deeds. A prayer had been made on behalf of the complainant that the thumb impressions of the accused persons should be taken by the court to be tested by an expert to determine whether the sale deeds in question were forged documents or not. Apparently this matter has 2 been pending since 2008 without there being any effort on behalf of the court to either accept or reject the application. I may make it clear, that it is only the court, who should have taken the thumb impression of the accused persons for verification. It would appear from the order, dated 25.2.2008 that the thumb impressions were to be taken. However, it could not be done because of absence of certain accused persons who were installed in jail at the relevant time. The matter was then fixed on 4.3.2008 and further postponed to 18.3.2008. The complainant could not appear on 18.3.2008. Thereafter the court declared the evidence closed and passed an order to proceed with the trial. It is the order, dated 18.3.2008 which is being challenged on the ground that it is unreasonable for the court not to take steps for taking the thumb impression and getting them examined, rather, passing an order closing the evidence which is unjustified in the circumstances as mentioned above. In the result I direct that the trial court should take steps in accordance with law and dispose of the application of the complainant, so that the thumb impressions of the accused persons or the persons concerned in executing the sale deeds are sent for examination to the Government expert, if it is essential to decide the issues at hand. The order impugned is quashed. Oral evidence should be led after the report is received from the Government expert. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 3 Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this court within six weeks from the date of its receipt before the concerned court. Since counsel for opposite Parties is present in court, he will inform his clients regarding the order so that the matter can be disposed of expeditiously. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)