IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32580 of 2009 SK.SHAHNAWAZ AKHAT @ SHABBU Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.02.2010 This case has been listed under the heading “for orders” on a slip filed by counsel for the informant who has only a reservation to the amalgamation of the trial as directed in the order dated 14.9.2009. Counsel for the informant in fact submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, trial court has in fact treated both the cases one under Section 304 B I.P.C. and the other under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C. to be the same case and has given only one case number whereas for both the cases there are two FIRs and consequently also the different set of witnesses. The apprehension of the counsel for the informant therefore is that this may lead to miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner would submit that said order was passed in presence of counsel for the informant and therefore nothing needs to be done specially when it is an admitted position that both the occurrence is in relation to the same set of accused 2 persons and almost extension of earlier incident of 304 B. In the opinion of this Court, as there were two first information reports and two separate cases were instituted, what this Court really meant while directing for "amalgamation" was that they had to be tried together. It does not mean that both the cases will loose their individual identity and will be merged into one case as alleged to have been done by the trial court. In that view of the matter, while clarifying the order of this court dated 14.9.2009 that both the cases would proceed separately but before the same court and on the same date. The time limit to conclude the trial would remain the same and if the trial court would find that the trial has remained pending only on account of laches on the part of the prosecution specially the informant it would proceed to decide the matter on the basis of materials existing on record. Let it be however noted that the learned counsel for the informant has undertaken before this Court that the informant would take all steps for completing the trial and ensure that the trial is concluded within a period of three months. Recording the aforementioned undertaking of 3 learned counsel for the informant as also with the aforementioned clarification in the order dated 14.9.2009, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure compliance of the order dated 14.9.2009 in letter and spirit and complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)