IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.38008 of 2007 1. SARTEJ TIWARI, s/o Ramgovind Tiwari & 2. Keshara Devi W/o Sartej Tiwari Both are residents of village- Bhagwanpur, P.O. & P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur/Bhabua. ...Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Saro Devi @ Saraswati Devi w/o Virendra Mishra, resident of village- Padouti, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur, at present at village- Bhagwanpur, P.O. & P.s.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ...Opposite Parties ----------- 3/ 19.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 16.5.2007, passed in Cr. Revision No.96/46 of 2006 arising out of Trial No. 402 of 2006 (Bhabhua P.S. case no.92 of 1997). Brief facts of the case is that opposite party no.2 had made an application before the trial court for exhibiting certain documents which he was permitted to do on payment of rupees three hundred within the stipulated period. Unfortunately, opposite party no.2, could not avail benefit of the order within the time fixed and, so, the court refused to exhibit the said document. As against the said refusal, the opposite party no.2 went before the revisional court, who allowed the application holding that the whole purpose of trial was to give equal opportunity to both the parties and, therefore, even if the opposite party no.2 had not availed the benefit within the stipulated time, the document should have been marked as exhibit. As against the revisional order, the petitioners have come before this court mainly on the ground that the court below had committed error in concluding that - 2 - the document was essential for just decision of the case and the Deed of Will being a public document it could be exhibited by the prosecution itself. Further contention is that the complainant had attempted to linger the prosecution case and, therefore, no benefit should be given to him. I am unable to accede to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners since I am in full agreement with the revisional court’s reasoning that the entire object of a criminal trial is not to find fault of the parties but to arrive at a just decision in the case. In case any court requires production of a document for such reason, the court should be at full liberty to do so. Under the circumstances, I find no merit in this application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)