IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31340 of 2008 DURGA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 26.9.2008 Heard. The report of the lower court is available at flag-A as per which the court has stated that because the two accused persons who were in custody were not produced before him, as such the charges could not be framed. One does not know as to how the Presiding Judge or Judges who were having the file of Sessions Trial No.14 of 2008 in the Judgeship of Gaya would tolerate this situation of non-production of the accused whose custody had been authorized by them to the Superintendent of the Central Jail,Gaya. Could not they imagine that there could be provisions in law empowering them to seek the appearance of those officers of the jail to appear before them and explain the lapse on their part on account of disobeying the Court’s order. Orders of production of the accused which are recorded on production warrants are equally an order of the Court requiring its compliance and could result into similar actions which a court could initiate on disobedience of its orders. Probably - 2 - the learned Judge or Judges who were having the above noted case in their files were not sensitive to the plight of two accused persons who were in jail and without trial. I could direct the learned Judge presiding over Fast Track Court,Gaya to frame the charges within one month of the receipt of the present order and take up the hearing of the case on a day to day basis by directing the officer-in-charge of the police, i.e., Belaganj, to appear before him with the witnesses who are cited in the chargesheet. This the Court could do by virtue of Section 170(2)Cr.P.C. and AIR 2002 SC 270 Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar. If there is any lapse on the part of the officer-in-charge of the above noted police the Presiding Judge shall look to the IPC and file an appropriate complaint against the officer, besides making a reference to this Court for contempt action. As regards the merit of the petition it has already been discussed in and decided by the previous order and in that light, I am not inclined to touch upon to that aspect of the matter. - 3 - Petition is dismissed. It is expected of the learned Judge of Fast Track Court No.2, Gaya that the trial is disposed of as soon as possible and within a maximum period of one and half years from the date of the receipt/production of the present order. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )