IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12986 of 2011 Rajmani Devi & Anr Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2/ 24/10/2011 Petitioners/accused have challenged order dated 21/03/2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 193 of 1991/68 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioners have been refused to defer the examination of P.W.10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. Simple submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the I.O., who was produced by the prosecution as P.W-9 in the year 1996, could not get his examination/cross- examination completed and the record, as it appears, is pending for examination of PW-9, the I.O.. Meanwhile, the prosecution has produced PW-10, Shakuntla Devi and in the aforesaid background petitioner has objected to the effect that till the conclusion of evidence of PW-9, PW-10 should not be examined. Learned APP opposes. So far legal position is concerned, the stage is fully controlled and governed by Sub-Section-2 of Section 331 of 2 the Cr.P.C. and that is arable by the court itself. Therefore, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner on this score is not at all maintainable. As such, the prayer is refused. Consequent thereupon the petition is rejected. However, learned lower court will take into notice that after examination of PW-10, if the attendance of the I.O. is not procured by the prosecution within six months from the date of conclusion of examination of PW-10, then in that event, court will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)