IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7609 of 2009 Vishal Kumar @ Chhotu Versus State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 4 17.8.2011 Perused the Letter No.59 dated 18.6.2011 which has been received by the Court from the trial Magistrate, Patna. By the above notede Letter the trial court sought extension of time which was earlier granted vide order dated 29.9.2010. It is pertinent to note that reasons which have been indicated in Letter No.59 dated 18.6.2011 were not stated in the earlier Letter No.147 dated 23.9.2010 upon which this Court was passing the order dated 29.9.2010. It appears that the trial Magistrate was avoiding to try the case for any particular reason and the reasons which have been assigned by her are completely untenable. The earlier extension of time granted to the court below by order dated 29.9.2010 was for six months which was the time frame fixed by the court below itself. It was expected that the Magistrate ought to have concluded the trial of Kankarbagh P.S.Case No.59 of 2008 / Trial No.349/11 within the fixed time frame. In addition to the above when the trial court was making its earlier report by Letter No.147 dated 23.9.2010 it was not pointing out to this Court that any accused had been sent to Biharsharif Jail in connection with any case. Thus, it could be said that the Magistrate was purposely allowing the removal of that accused to Biharsharif so as to avoiding the hearing of the case knowing full well that the time frame had been by her fixed for disposal of the case which had been granted by this Court and now I 2 she is again seeking extension of time to conclude the hearing of the trial. The Court has taken a serious view on the conduct of the officer to avoid the order of this Court. Let a show cause notice be issued to the trial Magistrate, namely, Smt.Namita Chandra, through the District Judge wherever she is posted in case she has been transferred from Patna directing her to submit an explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice so that this Court could further take a decision as to why should not make it an appropriate remarks in her C.R. It is generally found that the officers of lower judiciary fix time frame for disposal of the case and avoid to meet that time frame and whenever they are likely to be transferred generally they do so as not to dispose of the case. While sitting in Bench for hearing petitions under section 439 Cr.P.C, this has been my consistent experience. I am simply distressed to find that the officers are conducting the trial proceedings so badly and treating this Court as lightly. As soon as the explanation of the officer is received the petition shall be put up before me in Chambers on my administrative side. So far as the prayer for extension of time is concerned, considering that the successor officer may not be aware of the earlier order, six month time is granted to the trial court for conclusion of the trial. AnilKrSinha (Dharnidhar Jha,J.) 3