CRIMINAL REVISION No.833 OF 2006 DADAN RAM, aged about 45 years S/o late Sukhal Ram, R/o Vill. Rasidchak P.O. Siwan, P.S. Hussainganj, Dist. Siwan -----------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR -----------Opposite Party - Ist 2. Chandradev Ram, S/o late Sukhal Ram 3. Rajesh Ram @ Rajesh Kumar Ram 4. Rajiv Ram @ Rajiv Kumar Ram, Both S/o Chandradev Ram All R/o Vill. Rashidchak P.O. Siwan, P.S. Hussainganj, Dist. Siwan. --------------------(Opposite Parties-2nd) For the Petitioner : None. For the Opposite Parties : Indu Bala Pandey. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the A.P.P. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. In the case all the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. for which charge was framed against them. In the case merit has not been considered at all, rather none of the witnesses appeared or produced by the prosecution and that was taken as non-production of evidence by the prosecution. Legality, correctness and propriety, if any of the impugned order is challenged on the ground that summons, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant is shown to be issued but without 2 receiving its execution or compliance evidence is closed. In the case, order sheet of the trial is filed. Case was transferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Siwan on 3.04.2000. Accused persons appeared, trial commenced and charge framed in the case on 30.07.2003. Thereafter, case proceeded for evidence. For the first time, summons issued against the witnesses on 18.11.2003. Thereafter, bailable warrant issued on 02.02.2004 and on 20.01.2004 non-bailable warrant issued. Thereafter, again on 03.08.2004 non- bailable warrant was issued. From time to time, reminder was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Siwan but no compliance to the reminder or execution received and prosecution evidence closed. In my view, once process is issued either summon, bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant, its execution should be ascertained, rather executing agency should be asked whether process is served or not, then only prosecution evidence should be closed which has not been done in the case. So, the revision application is allowed and the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2006 is set aside. However, learned Court below is directed to proceed with the case Sessions Trial No. 321 of 1999 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Siwan from the stage of evidence. Taking care of that, once a process is issued for appearance of any of the witnesses, its execution and compliance should be ascertained and evidence can be closed only if the witnesses after having knowledge of the date of their examination avoids to come 3 to the Court. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed. The Patna High Court, 27th July, 2009 A.F.R./N.A.F.R. Shail. (Mandhata Singh, J.)