IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14121 of 2010 BHUTTA PASWAN, SON OF LATE RODI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATAUNA, P.S. KARJA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE LAXAMI SINGH 3. DHARAMNATH SINGH, SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATAUNA, P.S. KARJA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shambhu Nath, Advocate ----------- 2 16.4.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner is the informant in this case. The procedure is that the witnesses have to be examined by the Court one after the other. The informant is usually examined in the last and not at the beginning of the case. The orders passed on 18.2.2010 and 11.3.2010 should in accordance with Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub- section (1) of Section 231 reads as follows: “On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.” Sub-section (2) of Section 231 requires that “The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.” Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall empower the Magistrate to proceed to take such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, the procedure that should be followed in a criminal case is that the prosecution is required to produce his witnesses one after the other who will first be examined and then 2 cross-examined if the defence wishes to cross-examine them. The next witness would thereafter be examined. The question of abstaining from cross-examining of a particular witness is the discretion of the Court which should be done for good reasons. In the order dated 18.2.2010 and 11.3.2010 the Court has stayed the cross- examination of the informant and ordered that the other witnesses should be examined and cross-examined before the examination and cross-examination if taken up. The Court has not assigned any reason for doing so. In the result, I quash the orders aforesaid passed in Trial No. 47 of 2006 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Muzaffarpur and remand the matter back for re- consideration within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Trial Court will be at liberty to give reasons for staying the cross-examination of the informant until other witness are examined. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating this order to the Court below or else this application shall stand dismissed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)