IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55095 of 2007 DAYANAND PRASAD, Son of Late Bisheshwar Das, resident of Village- Ukharia Tola, Uma Bazar, P.S. Kaua Kole, District- Nawadah, Bihar. .....Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.......................................................Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 23.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2007 corresponding to Trial No. 324 of 2006, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nawadah, has directed for taking the L.T.I. of Gayatri Devi, an accused in the said case and for the same she was directed to present in the court. Similar order was passed by the trial court on 05.02.2007 that order travelled to the High Court being challenged in Cr. Misc. No. 19903 of 2007. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 30.07.2007 as contained in Annexure-7, quashed the aforesaid order in following terms: “Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. I am of the view that after lapse of ten years the prosecution should not be allowed to take advantage of its own fault. The accused- petitioner always co-operated and appeared before the court for 2 compliance of the order dated 19.11.1997 but his L.T.I. was not taken. The Investigating Officer also did not press for the same and submitted charge-sheet without report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, at this stage it would not be proper to direct the accused- petitioner to give L. T. I. for examination by Forensic Science Laboratory. It will only drag the matter for a pretty long time. The admitted fact is that L.T.I. of accused petitioner is already on record. If the prosecution thinks proper it may get compared the L.T.I. by local expert in court during course of evidence preferably within one month failing which the court below will proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.” In pursuance to the High Court’s order, the trial court ought to have proceeded in the manner directed by the Hon’ble High Court but the learned Magistrate I think did not bother to look into the order passed by the High Court and pass the impugned order as the impugned order does not reflect that the earlier order of the Hon’ble Court was taken note by the learned Magistrate. If the prosecution was aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the only option was to challenge the order dated 30.07.2007, contained in Annexure-7, which has attained finality as it has not been 3 challenged. Moreover, the direction of the Hon’ble High Court has not been complied as the trial is still pending even after about 2 ½ years of passing of the order by this Hon’ble High Court. In view of the order dated 30.07.2007, this Court can not take a different view and pass a different order. The laches of the investigating agency can not be rectified by the trial court particularly in derogation to the order of the Hon’ble High Court contained in Annexure-7. In view of the facts discussed above, I find that the order dated 19.09.2007 is absolutely without jurisdiction and it is being quashed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)