IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17841 of 2010 KUSHMI DEVI W/O MISHRI MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- MURLA, P.S.- RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPRAN ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMASHRAY MAHTO, S/O LATE RADHA MAHTO 3. TULSI MAHTO, S/O RAMASHRAY MAHTO 4. RAM BALAK MAHTO, S/O LATE RADHA MAHTO 5. CHHABILAL MAHTO, S/O RAM CHANDRA MAHTO 6. JIDHAN MAHTO, S/O LATE HARI MAHTO 7. NAND LAL MAHTO, S/O RAM CHANDRA MAHTO 8. LORIK MAHTO, S/O RAMASHRAY MAHTO ALL R/O VILLAGE- MURLA, P.S.- RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ……………….Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan adv. ------------- 2. 27.01.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 48/1999, by which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been disallowed. From the order impugned which is dated 9.4.2010 i.e., almost a year back, I notice that the charge was framed on 2.6.2005 and thereafter on 25.3.2008 an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for examination of certain witnesses. Unfortunately the said order was disposed of, more than 2 years later on 9.4.2010, which shows the lax attitude of the court and the informant is not solely responsible for the delay in trial. In view of such, the Trial Court is directed to consider whether the examination of the witnesses sought for on behalf of the informant is essential for the just decision of the case pass appropriate order within a period of one month. With these observations the application is disposed off. The District Judge, East Champaran at Motihari is directed to hold a meeting with his judicial officers to impress upon them the importance of disposing off such matters expeditiously since lingering such matters contribute majorly to delay in trials. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )