IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33526 of 2008 Anzarul Haque, son of Abdul Wadood, village Naya Tola, Saraiya, Gram Panchayat Haripur, PS Simri, Dist. Darbhanga – Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar 2 7.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he has to face de novo trial in this case. The Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga while passing the impugned order, dated 5.7.2008 in T.R. No. 75/2008, arising out of Simri PS Case No. 11/2003, has considered section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although section 326 of the Cr.P.C. provides that whenever any Judge of Magistrate after having heard and recorded the whole or ay part of the evidence in any inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Judge or Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the Judge or Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself, provided that he is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witness whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, he may respondent-summon such witness. However, it clearly specifies that the provisions of sub-section (3) of 326 would not apply to summary trial. 2 Meaning thereby that where the jurisdiction to hear the case has been given to the transfree judge, in other matters, it has not been done so in a summary trial. I, thus, direct that the case may be concluded within a period of six months. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. I haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)