Criminal Miscellaneous No.25009 OF 1998 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ RAM BABU son of Shri Jamuna Prasad, resident of Sitamarhi Town, P.S.,Sitamarhi, Dist.-Sitamarhi. …. ….Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Bindeshwar Prasad Baitha, the then Munsif, Sitamarhi(West) P.S.Dumra, Dist.-Sitamarhi …. ….Opposite Parties. ------- For the petitioner : Mr.Prasoon Sinha For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Shekhar Singh For the Stat: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved by order dated 28.5.1998 passed in Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1991 to the extent whereby the learned District Judge, Sitamarhi, vacated the order of stay which was passed on 29.3.1991. The petitioner had filed the said appeal under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code against the order directing to file complaint against him under section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal i.e. Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1991 was admitted on 29.3.1991. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was taken up for final hearing on 26.5.1998. On the said date a time petition was filed on behalf of the appellant (petitioner before this court) on the ground that due to ailment he was out of station and it was also submitted that medical certificate will be produced on the next date. Accordingly, the case was fixed to 28.5.1998. On 28.5.1998 by filing a petition, again a prayer for adjournment was made on the ground that the appellant,Ram 2 Babu, who was ill since long, was having entire documents with him. In the said time petition, it was mentioned that the respondent had got no objection. The said petition was moved. However, the appellate court while accepting the time petition and fixing the case to 28.8.1998 recalled the earlier order of stay dated 29.3.1991. The appellate court was of the view that the appellant was unnecessarily lingering the hearing of the appeal. Of course, while passing the order for recalling the order dated 29.3.1991, the appellate court had not clarified as to which portion of the order dated 29.3.1991 was to be recalled. 3. Learned counsel submits that since the appellate court had already extended the date of hearing it can be presumed that only stay order was recalled. By order dated 29.3.1991 the court had admitted the appeal and also passed an order of stay. Learned counsel has referred to annexure-4 series to the petition and submits that the petitioner was actually ill and he never tried to delay the conclusion of the hearing. 4. I have also heard Mr.Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. 5. The petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 28.5.1998 by filing the present petition and by order dated 22.12.1998 this court, while passing the order for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2, passed an order that in the meantime operation of the order dated 28.5.1998 passed in Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1991 pending in the court of District Judge, Sitamarhi, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by an order dated 3 6.1.2000 the petition was admitted and it was ordered that in the meantime interim order passed on 22.12.1998 shall continue. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if a date is fixed, argument on behalf of the petitioner will be completed without taking any adjournment. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has got no objection and he also submits that, for the ends of justice, it would be necessary to give a direction to complete the hearing in Misc.Appeal No.3 of 1991 pending in the court of District Judge, Sitamarhi, within a short period. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and part of the order dated 28.5.1998 in relation to recall of the order of stay dated 29.3.1991 is set aside. The District Judge, Sitamarhi, is directed to decide the Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1991within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before this court. 8. In view of disposal of this case and in view of direction being given to the court below, the office is directed to remit back the lower court records along with a copy of this order to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court, The 29th March,2010 Md.S/NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)