IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.250 of 2008 RAM LAKHAN SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 18.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant revision application is directed against order dated 12/2/2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1194 of 1996, by which the court below has rejected the petition filed by the prosecution under section 311 Cr.P.C. for giving opportunity to produce IO and the doctor. It would appear from order of the learned trial court that the last witness was examined on 28.8.2000, thereafter both the bailable and non bailable warrants were issued for summoning the IO and the doctor including writing letter to the SSP, Patna also. Still on 8.9.2007, 30.11.2007, 12.11.2007 and 28.11.2007 repeatedly chances were allowed to the prosecution to produce the aforesaid witnesses. The opp parties rigtly relied on a decision rendered in case of Keshav Chaudhary and others Vs state of Bihar, reported in 2000(1) PCCR 764. When the prosecution failed to produce IO and doctor for examination even after clear lapse of eight years, the prosecution case was closed on 4.1.2000. The statement of accused was recorded on 12.1.2000, thereafter the instant application was filed for giving an opportunity to the prosecution to produce IO and doctor. Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers upon the power to summon material witness or persons not summoned as a witness. Such discretion is to be exercised in a judicious manner and it cannot provide a rope to the prosecution side which has utterly failed to produce two official witnesses despite allowing opportunity of eight years granted to it. Section - 2 - 311 Cr.P.C. has been provided for arriving at a just decision and to provide an opportunity to either of the sides to examine or produce witnesses which could not be done in spite of due diligence. Grant of such liberty of allowing prosecution to produce two official witnesses the IO and the doctor after about lapse of eight years would amount to an abuse of process of law. As such, this court does not find it a fit case, in which any further opportunity is to be provided to the prosecution. Before parting with this order, I would like to mention that it will be open to the authorities to take appropriate action against the IO and the doctor who even failed to respond to various warrants both bailable and non bailable as well as letters of the district administration to make themselves available for deposing during trial. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).