IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9125 of 2010 1. ONKAR YADAV 2. ASHOK YADAV, BOTH SONS OF MAHADEO YADAV 3. MAHADEO YADAV, SON OF NARSINGH YADAV, ALL RESIDENT OF NAWADIH, P.S. SIKANDRA, DISTRICT JAMUI ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHARAT YADAV, SON OF DAHU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWADIH, P.S. SIKANDRA, DISTT. JAMUI …. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 2. 25.11.2010 The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 24.2.2010 passed in S.T.No.242 of 2007, by which the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Jamui has allowed an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. filed by the informant. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that till 12.9.2007 five witnesses were examined and thereafter no witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and the case was closed and it is only when the arguments on behalf of the accused commenced that an application belatedly was filed by the prosecution to summon the informant. Considering that it is for the trial court to adjudicate whether the witnesses were examined for the just decision of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the trial court shall fix an outer time limit for concluding the evidence of the so-called witnesses and with an additional cost on each of the witness to be 2 examined by the prosecution. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )