IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27436 of 2010 MUNNA RAI, son of Shree Rai, resident of village/ Mohalla Jattahi Pokhara, P.S. Chapra Mufasil, District Chapra, Saran Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 22.6.2011 Heard counsel for the State. When a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra as with regard to the reasons of not producing the remaining four witnesses he has conveniently avoid to file his own report. An affidavit has been filed by the Sub-divisional Police Officer which cannot be a substitute of the report which was to be submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Counsel for the State would submit that out of four witnesses, who were shown to be not examined in the report of the trial court dated 14.9.2010 at Flag ‘X’, one has already been examined way back on 27.11.2006. Obviously the court below was never intending to include the said witness Dr. Umesh Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Saran at Chapra who was already examined on 27.11.2006, inasmuch as the report of the court below as with regard 2 to non-examination of four witnesses is dated 14.9.2010. The explanation that the Investigating Officer, namely, Ganga Ram Hansda, has died on 16.1.2011 would now leave the court below to examine three witnesses. The letter of the Superintendent of Police to the learned counsel for the State dated 12.6.2011 makes it clear that two of the charge sheet witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar and Sanjay Yadav are not in existence and as such, their deposition is not possible. In the said letter of the Superintendent of Police, Saran dated 12.6.2011 it has been mentioned that there were in all only 11 private witnesses out of which 9 of them have already been examined. That would mean that the prosecution does not intend to examine any other witness. Let the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra get an application filed by the Public Prosecutor/ Addl. Public Prosecutor as with regard to the State being not in a position to produce the remaining witnesses. This exercise must be completed within a period of four weeks from today. 3 Upon receipt of such application as with regard to closure of evidence by the prosecution the court below will proceed further and ensure that the judgment in the connected criminal case is delivered within three months from the date of filing of such an application by the Public Prosecutor. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/