IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18420 of 2008 BACHHI DEVI WIFE OF LATE RAM JINISH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAURA KOTHI, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BASDEO SINGH @ BALDEO SINGH SON OF LATE SHREE SINGH @ KISHUN SINGH 3. JAGDISH SINGH SON OF BASDEO SINGH 4. SUDIST NARAIN SINGH SON OF BASDEO SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAURA KOTHI P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 5. DINESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAJAWAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUHIRASULPUR, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the opposite party no.2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 12th February, 2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 220 of 2007 whereby the order dated 17th September, 2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 217 of 2007 directing the accused persons to produce the gift deed in question, was set aside by the impugned order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the deed of gift was the primary document/subject matter of the case was rightly directed to be produced by the order passed by the Trial Court, however the said order dated 17th September, 2008 was set aside without any valid justification and considering the fact that the aforesaid document was a necessary document. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that the opposite party no.2 being an accused cannot be compelled upon to produce a document against him. Secondly it is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. was absolutely not maintainable since the aforesaid provision did not provide for production of a document. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that in the aforesaid case after taking cognizance the charges were framed against the accused persons on 4th May, 1998 and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed on 22nd November, 2003. Later on the defense evidence was also closed on 29th June, 2006 and the case was posted for argument and the prosecution argued the case in part when a petition was filed on 30th August, 2007 under section 311 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to direct the accused persons to produce the original deed of gift. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact filing of such petition at the belated stage by the prosecution was only for the purpose to delay the trial in which the chances of conviction was bleak. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 12th February, 2008 in Cr. Rev. No. 220 of 2007, I do not find any error in the order and the Court below after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case set aside the order. For the reasons stated above, the application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)