IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25813 of 2010 Dinanath Singh Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 14.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned Sessions Judge, Patna while disposing of Cr.Revision No.196 of 2008 vide order dated 06.05.2010 set aside the order passed by the learned lower court by which there has been closure of defence case and further circumscribe the defence by way of granting three adjournments only. The aforesaid order has been put under challenge before this Court when the time has crossed much more than so granted by the learned Sessions Judge. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of filing of instant petition, the learned lower court did not provide the opportunity in pursuance of the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge. Equity demands that equal opportunity be also given to the accused to show his innocence. Instant case bears number complaint case no.481C of 1994 and so it happens to be a matter of apathy furthermore continuance that too, of the complaint case wherein sincerity of the party must be properly identified. That does not mean that one should be deprived of his legal right or should feel some sort of prejudice at any score. I have gone through the relevant order passed by the learned lower court on this score in consonance with the finding arrived at by the learned revisional court in the 2 aforesaid background. I do not see any cogent ground to interfere at this score save and except directing the learned lower court that no further adjournment than the three dates, as given under the revisional order, should be allowed to be availed by defence on any score. The aforesaid three dates should be consummate as early as possible more preferably within two months. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned revisional court, instant petition is disposed of. B.Kr. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)