IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43499 of 2007 BINOD KUMAR SINGH s/o Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh R/o- Mohall- Belan Bajar, P. S.- Kasim Bajar, District- Munger. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Tarkeshwar Prasad s/o Late Akhileshwar Prasad R/o- Mohall- Belan Bajar, P.S.- Kasim Bajar, District- Munger. … Opp. Party. ----------- 5. 19.03.2010 Heard Mr. Shambhu Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The solitary grievance of the petitioner as against impugned order dated 20.11.2006 and its affirmance by the revisional court in the order dated 4.6.2007 is that it was more or less on account of laches on the part of conducting counsel that the opportunity of leading evidence in defence of the petitioner, accused in a complaint case for offence u/s 427, 447, 448, 452, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Section 25A Arms Act could not be availed. While much can be said with regard to the conduct of the lawyer defending the petitioner but then at the end of the day if the petitioner facing a criminal trial 2 has in law a right to defend himself and lead evidence in his defence which he has u/s 311 Cr.P.C. technicality cannot and should not be allowed to come in his way and accordingly while setting aside both the impugned orders, this Court by way of indulgence and in the interest of justice would direct the trial court that if the petitioner would produce his defence evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the trial court shall record his defence evidence on day to day basis and thereafter dispose of the trial in next three months, keeping in view that it is a sixteen year old complaint case. That being so, this application is allowed in the aforementioned terms. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)