IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.5866 OF 2010 KANHAIYA PANDIT, SON OF ALTE RAM DAYAL PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONBARSA, CHOWK, MUSAPUR, P.S. SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR…PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 12.05.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence in the case had been closed and the case was fixed for argument and thereafter under the orders of this Court, the case was reopened for recall of the Investigating Officer and his re- examination in the background of the fact that one witness was examined by the prosecution, after evidence of the I.O. who claims himself to be eye-witness but had never appeared during investigation before the police nor his statement was recorded. He submits that the I.O. is not appearing and the case is lingering. When the case has been reopened and the Investigating Officer has been summoned to appear for further evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to ensure his presence at an early - 2 - date for such evidence and if the prosecution does not do it, trial court is not obliged to give indefinite indulgence to the prosecution. Therefore, the trial court is directed to proceed with trial even if the prosecution fails to produce the Investigating Officer for further evidence, if necessary, by drawing adverse inference. In any case, trial court should ensure that the trial is concluded at an early date and preferably within a period of three months from today. This application is disposed of with the foresaid observations and directions. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)