IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48606 of 2007 MD.ELIYASH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 27.04.2009 The order dated 19.9.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 219/05 by learned Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, East Champaran at Motihari is the cause and subject matter of challenge in the present application. An application dated 25.1.2007 filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been accepted by the trial Court and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in a case earlier filed against the accused persons. The petition on behalf of the prosecution came to be filed after witnesses had been examined and certain evidences and materials had emerged with regard to the complicity of these petitioners in the alleged crime and that was the foundation or the reason for the summon to the petitioners to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is hardly any material or evidence which could have led the trial Court to conclude that the same is sufficient for the 2 conviction of these petitioners in the matter. Till such conclusion is reached by the trial Court order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to have been passed, in view of the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2009(1)PLJR (SC)167. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that though the investigation against some of the accused persons was still going on and the police also took its sweet time to come to a conclusion with regard to their complicity. The fact also emerges that during the trial many witnesses have come to be examined and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has delved into the evidence which has come during the course of trial. Since complicity was found, the accused persons who are petitioners before this Court have been summoned. He also submits that there is no infirmity in the order because it is neither cryptic nor of the kind where the material or reasoning has not been provided by the Court below. After perusing the order impugned and 3 going through it, the contention of the learned counsel representing the O.P. is borne out from the records. There is material and there is evidence based on which the learned Court below has come to the conclusion that the petition on behalf of the prosecution deserves to be entertained. In that view of the matter in absence of any legal infirmity there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. The quashing application is dismissed. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. )