IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56119 of 2007 SURENDRA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8/ 10.04.2009 The Court, by its order dated 21.1.2009 issued notice to show cause against the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad after perusing the report submitted by the Presiding Judge i.e. Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad which appears at Flag ‘A’. The above report indicated that in spite of issuing process including warrant of arrest against the witnesses and also having written letters to the Superintendents of Police of Gaya, Jehanabad , Supaul, Muzaffarpur, Banka, Patna as well as that of CID, Patna, the court could not get any witness produced before it in Sessions Trial No. 406 of 2006 / 143 of 2006 arising out of Navinagar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2003. The reasons for issuing the notice is detailed in order dated 21.1.2009 passed by this court in the present petition. It is regularly being seen that on account of the non-cooperation of the investigating agency, witnesses are not brought to the dock, which is primary duty of investigating agency, as may appear from section 170(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also from the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 S.C. 270 and thereby they often make it very difficult for the trial judges to adhere to the time frame as fixed by this court or the other superior court. The learned trial judge has indicated in his report that the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad was requested to ensure the attendance of P.Ws along with the police witnesses but to no - 2 - effect and eleven witnesses including the informant and Investigating Officer were yet to be examined on account of not being produced. The rule in the form of the notice to show cause was issued to the Superintendent of Police and it was sent for service and it appears from the report that one of his subordinate employees received the notice. Thus, the notice appears properly served. The Superintendent of Police did not appear to reply to the Rule. This further makes out a case of disobedience of this court as also a clear act of undermining the authority of this court. Let this matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for obtaining an order of listing before an appropriate Bench which hears the contempt matters so that proper contempt proceeding is initiated against the Superintendent of Police concerned. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)