IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.56 of 2010 MAHA SUNDARI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8/ 1.4.2011 The delay in filing the application for special leave to appeal is condoned. Heard Shri Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the state. The prosecution was initiated through the complaint petition no. 775 C of 2005. The charges were framed on 4.8.2009 under sections 420, 465, 468, 469, 466, 471 and 120B of the IPC jointly and severely against the respondents, as may appear from the head of charges at pages 17, 18 and 19 of the lower court records. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution and all of a sudden, just after the 13th day of the charge, prosecution evidence was shut out as may appear from order dated 17.8.2009. The attention of the court was drawn to two orders specifically. It was pointed out by drawing the attention of mine towards order dated 20th April, 2009 that the Presiding officer of the court was transferred and, as such, the next date was fixed on 5.6.2009 and on that date the record was placed before the Incharge court and that court ordered the case to be fixed on a particular date. The contention is that the date which was ordered to be fixed on 5.6.2009 was 18.9.2009, which date was given to the complainant 2 also but by interpolating the dates by making the overwriting, it was made 16.7.2009 and an order jointly dated 5.6.2009 and 16.7.2009 was passed. The record was received by Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J.M. Ist Class, Danapur on 29.7.2009 on account of the case being transferred to his court and thereafter the charges were framed on 4.8.2009 and as just pointed out, the evidence was closed on 20th August, 2009 and the accused persons were acquitted of the charges. On perusal of the record which has struck this court the most is that in spite of 5.6.2009 being fixed as a date by the incharge court on 2.4.2009, there was no placing of the record before the officer officiating as incharge of the court and all of a sudden, on 16.7.2009, a joint order dated 5.6.2009/16.7.2009 was passed. The contention that the interpolations were made is proved by this fact alone that how could the incharge court know that the date was fixed on 16.7.2009 when there was no placing of the record before him on 5.6.2009, and when there was no order dated 5.6.2009 adjourning the case to 16.7.2009 which is proved by the absence of any order passed on that particular date, i.e., 5.6.2009. The most surprising fact was that after having framed the charge on 4.8.2009, the magistrate, who was handling the case, was not taking any steps for seeking production of the witnesses. The contention was that the complainant was not appearing. If the complainant was not appearing, then in that case also the record was to be sent necessarily to the counsel for the complainant by drawing up an order that the complainant was required to be present and he 3 was required to produce his witnesses. There was nothing done like that. Even the ordinary expectation of the system of justicing, which we have adopted, that the magistrate ought to have issued certain processes himself for procuring the attendance of the witnesses was not fulfilled. Could not it be a case that the record was being manoeuvered without being placed in the court room and the orders were being passed in the back of the complainant so as to consigning the case and acquitting the accused persons? Considering the above circumstance and considering the illegality and the acts of impropriety in which the officers have indulged in acquitting the accused persons in an unprecedented manner, this application for Special Leave to Appeal is allowed. The petitioner is directed to present the memo of appeal so that the necessary order on that could be passed by this court. The petitioner must file the memo of appeal in a week. Lower court records shall be preserved as part of the present SLA so that the court hears on the memo of appeal and pass final order. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)