IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43333 of 2008 RAGHO PASWAN @ RAGHAV PASWAN, son of Chandrika Paswan, resident of village- Semrakha(dushad Patti)Handi Tola, P.S.Turkoulia, District-East Champaran. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 5.2.2009 Heard Sri D.K.Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is the assailant of the deceased as may appear from the earlier rejection order specially the one passed in Cr.Misc.Petition No.40873 of 2007. The renewal prayer has been made on the ground that in spite of being in custody since 8.5.2006, which date appears also in the report of the court below, the petitioner has not got justice delivered to him. A report appears called for from the trial court and that appears at flag-“X”. Four witnesses appear examined in the case and seven more are yet to be examined. The learned Judge has reported that the prosecution was not producing the informant and other witnesses. I could point out to the learned Judge to consult the provisions which appears defining his process in the Cr.P.C. for forcing the production of the witnesses and the one such could be giving the notice to produce the witness to the officer-in-charge of Turkoulia police station by directing him to remain physically present with witnesses on days of hearing. The names of witnesses must be appended to the notice. In case, the witnesses are not produced then the learned Judge could look to Section 309(2) Explanation (2) to Cr.P.C. under which a court may impose cost for unnecessarily adjournment. A copy of the notice to the officer-in-charge of Turkoulia police station to - 2 - remain present with the witnesses may also be forwarding to the S.P. and the failure on the part of the police in producing the witnesses may entail upon them to pay costs for adjournment which may be realized from the salary of the officer-in-charge of Turkoulia police station. The court could do it in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 270. I believe that the court will act fast and act accordingly as per the direction given by the Apex Court and dispose of the case within a further period of six months, else the Presiding Officer shall be held squarely responsible for not reaching the time frame and delivering justice to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order separately be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari for information. The petition is dismissed with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )