IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3854 of 2009 PAPPU YADAV, son of Sri Kapildeo Yadav, resident of village Matia, P.S. Nimchak Bathani, District - Gaya Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 29.1.2009 Heard. The petitioner is one of the three assailants of the deceased as appears from orders passed by different benches of this court, contained in Annexures 1 and 3, either in respect of the present petitioner or in respect of other accused persons. The renewal prayer is that in spite of the trial court having set down a time of three months for concluding the trial, as may appear from Annexure 1, qua the trial could not be disposed of within that time and it is still pending for examination of the informant. The contention appears supported by the record made by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No. V, Gaya who is trying Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2008 in his order refusing the prayer for bail on 22.12.2008. Learned Judge has given reasons as to why trial could not be concluded and has indicated that he has issued notice under section 170 of the Code 2 of Criminal Procedure for production of the witness but the learned A.P.P. has not produced any witness before him. The learned trial judge has not indicated in his order as to how many more months would be required by him to conclude the trial. Issuing a notice to the Officer Incharge is one of the procedures but the other procedure which could have some effect, could be saddling the prosecution with appropriate cost for seeking undue adjournments. The Judges of the lower court, very often, miss or misread the provision of section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only to slap the accused with some cost. The provision is meant for any party which is found seeking undue adjournment during trial. The court would have felt happiness had it found the learned Presiding Officer saddling the Public Prosecutor with appropriate cost to be realized either from his fee or from the salary of the Officer Incharge of police station to whom notice under section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. I believe that he could do it besides making a reference 3 to this court about the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station to whom the notice has been issued. The court fixes yet another period of three months for conclusion of the trial from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. In case it does no conclude, then the Presiding Officer shall submit an explanation to this court as not meeting the said time may be treated as an instance of inefficiency of the Judge. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, Gaya also for information and doing the needful towards bringing the trial to an end within the time stipulated above. As regards the merit of the case, it has already been indicated that petitioner is one of the assailants of the deceased and as such, he could not be directed to be admitted to bail. Petition is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )