IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. NO.256 OF 2009 RAHI RAM PRASAD PANDEY, SIDHESHWAR YADAV, SHOE PRASAD PANDEY, RAM REKHA RAWANI, DOMAN YADAV, BINOD DUBEY, AKHILESHWAR YADAV AND MADHESHWAR YADAV VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 21.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 20.1.2009, whereby application filed on their behalf under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Investigating officer has been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. II, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005. It appears from the impugned order that the prosecution case was closed on 28.8.2007 without Investigating officer being examined. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defence also examined several witnesses. However when the case was fixed for argument, the defence field instant petition for summoning the Investigating officer under section 311 of the Indian Penal Code. If the defence was convinced that non-examination of Investigating officer would prejudice the case, nothing stopped it from filing a petition for summoning the Investigating officer prior to the recording of the statement of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, by way of last indulgence, this Court grants one more chance for summoning the Investigating officer. In case, even within four weeks of issuance of summons/warrant, the Investigating officer does not appear, the Magistrate would not wait any further and proceed with the argument of - 2 - the parties. The revision application is disposed of accordingly. Let this order be faxed to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioners. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)