IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40695 of 2008 Prem Kumar Sah, son of Late Bindeshwari Pd. Sah, village Pipra MukhiyaTola, PS Banmankhi, Dist. Purnea – Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 2 28.7.2011 HeardMr. Pramod Kumar Mallik, counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State. This application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 5.6.2008 and 10.1.2008 by which the courts below have rejected the application of the petitioner filed for examination of some witnesses under section 284 of the Cr.P.C. The courts below have rejected the application on behalf of the petitioner on the ground, that after the evidence of the prosecution was closed on 26.12.2008, and statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, petitioner filed an application for examination of defence witnesses. The trial court rejected it. The revisional court allowed the application and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to examine defence witnesses. Despite the opportunity the defence witnesses were not produced. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time granted was only for one week. At that stage the petitioner did not make a prayer that he would need to examine certain witnesses on commission under section 284 Cr.P.C. After lapse of time, again the petitioner filed a petition under section 284 which has rightly been rejected by the court below, on the ground that piecemeal applications, filed for examination of defence witnesses cannot be 2 permitted, it is nothing but a tactics to delay the entire trial. The reason and observation of the court are perfectly justified. The court below has a right to reject such an application, if it finds that the application has been filed to delay the trial. In the facts aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. This application is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)