IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1361 of 2008 KAMLESH KUMAR @ KAMLESH KUER Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 22.01.2009. In the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 25.10.2008 by which the learned trial court has rejected the application of petitioner to bring on the record all the important documents to substantiate his defence. Contention of the petitioner is that there is a case and counter case and in fact the victim of the counter case and the lawyer earlier conducting the case did not notice that some important documents ought to have been placed on record. He further submits that there is no limitation on power of court, if in its opinion, it would be necessary to take further evidence and the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay of trial. In this respect, leaned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex court in case of Jamat Raj Vs State of Maharastra, reported in 1968 SC 178. It appears that earlier an Interlocutory application was filed for setting aside further proceeding in the case. A bench of this court, under order dated 23.12.2008 directed that the case be listed under the heading for admission. In the meantime, further proceeding in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1992, was also stayed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that this case has a chequered history. In this case charge was framed on 27.9.1996 and prosecution evidence was - 2 - closed on 21.1.2006, then after lapse of 18 months statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. could be recorded. The defence case was closed on 17.7.2008. Accused persons thereafter filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. to adduce evidence and to file papers. The aforesaid application was allowed in interest of justice. However, defence produced two witnesses and did not file any document. The defence was closed for the second time on 19.8.2008. The argument of prosecution was heard on 16.10.2008 and 17.10.2008. When the case was fixed for defence argument, a petition was filed with fresh Vakalatnama praying therein for reopening of defence evidence for adducing some more documents in evidence. From the impugned order this Court finds that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence and to file documents. Though the charge was framed way back on 27.9.2006 but the case has not been concluded as yet. In such circumstances, this court is not included to grant relief sought for by the petitioner. The revision application is dismissed accordingly. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).