IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27849 of 2010 JITENDRA LAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 4.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the rejection order, it appears that the informant and the I.O. of the case were only the witnesses who were to be examined. However, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the rejection order, the informant of the case has been examined and only I.O. is yet to be examined. The court below has pointed out that it shall take six months more to conclude the trial and that those six months could be counted, in the opinion of this court, from 5.3.2010, which time appears excessive. Let Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad be directed to issue an office order against SI S.N. Ram, who was the Officer Incharge of Daudnagar Police station on 16.2.2007, directing him to appear in the court below, i.e., the court of Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Aurangabad for his evidence in S.T. No. 01 of 2008 / 369 of 2009. That order should contain a direction that if he did not produce the certificate granted by the learned trial judge that he had appeared and deposed in the court and has been discharged by the learned trial judge, then his salary shall be stopped and further that he shall be relieved for joining the above said court for giving evidence in the concerned sessions trial. 2 The Court believes that the I.O. of the case named above shall appear in the court below and the proceedings of examining him and further taking evidence of the defence and recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be concluded in one month from the date the Superintendent of Police passes an order as indicated above. The court below shall, thereafter, hear the argument in a further period of one month and deliver the judgment just thereafter. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)