IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.44884 OF 2009 STATE OF BIHAR VERSUS OM PRAKASH SINGH, OM PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH, RESIDENT OF NAI VIHAR, POLICE STATION BHAGWAN BAZAR, CHAPRA. PRESENTLY, POSTED AS SERGENT IN HAJIPUR POLICE LINE, DISTRICT VAISHALI, BIHAR ******** 2 14/05/2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 1999. In this case, 11 witnesses were examined, out of which, the informant, PW 4 to PW 8 are the eye- witnesses to the alleged occurrence. The doctor has also been examined in the case. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The defence has also closed its case by examining a single witness on its behalf. An application thereafter has been filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure making a prayer that the Investigating Officer of this case should be examined. It appears from the order sheet that the evidence in this case started in the year 2004 and from 2004 to 2009, the prosecution has been producing its witnesses one by one for 2 examination. Six years time was given to the prosecution to produce witnesses and to prove its case. Dasti summons were also served on the Investigating Officer of the case but apparently the Investigating Officer has not turned up on service of the dasti summons. Considering all this aspects and taking into consideration that sufficient time was given to the prosecution for producing the witnesses and prove its case, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the order of the Court. If eye-witness cannot prove the allegations in the First Information Report, it is not likely that Investigating Officer by his solitary evidence could do so; (the reverse would also be true), therefore, I find no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by rejection of their rather delayed plea. In the circumstances, I do not think it proper that after the evidence of both the parties have been closed after a lapse of six years, this Court cannot find any justification for allowing the prosecution to produce witnesses and the application filed on 02.09.2009 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is misplaced. I do not see any illegality in the reasonings given by the Court below. This application is 3 accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)