IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.17 of 2007 SURESH SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. FEKAN SINGH 3. BIJENDRA SINGH 4. UPENDRA SINGH 5. RAVINDRA SINGH 6. CHOTAN SINGH 7. BIRJA SINGH 8. BHUSHAN SINGH 9. DASHRATH MISTRY 10. CHANDRA SHEKHAR MISTRY ----------- 9. 06.01.2009 Heard. The present petition has been filed seeking leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. From the judgment under challenge it appears that the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons (opposite parties herein) of the charges punishable under sections 307/149 and section 27 of the Arms Act. The judgment records that although the charges were framed in this case on 3.7.2001, but for a period of over five years no witness except one turned up. Ultimately, it appears that the evidence was closed sometime in October,2006. From the judgment it further appears that the trial court had taken all necessary/effective steps to ensure the attendance of the witnesses but in spite of all those steps no witness except one namely Suresh Singh appeared and, as such, on consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial court acquitted the opposite parties herein of all the charges. Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court - 2 - to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the present application which reads thus: “That it is humbly submitted that when the trial starts then it was the duty of the court to summon the complainant (appellant) and other witness for their examination-in-chief as well as cross- examination but reasons known to the court concern, neither the complainant (appellant) nor the witnesses of the case, were summoned by the learned trial court. Not only this, no step was taken by the learned trial court for examination of the complainant (appellant) and the concerned witnesses in the trial and accordingly due to non-issuance of summon as well as non-taking of other precautionary step against the complainant(appellant) for their examination in the present trial, neither the complainant (appellant) nor any concerned witness appeared before the trial court and accordingly the learned trial court without adopting proper step for appearance of the witnesses, passed the order/judgment dated 2.12.2006.” Learned counsel for the opposite parties, referring to a judgment reported in 1985 BBCJ page 687, submits that primarily it was the duty of the prosecution to secure the attendance of the witnesses. It has further been submitted that even if the aid of the Court has been obtained , then also it is the sole duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses. Having thoughtfully considered the matter, this Court is of the view that no good ground has been made out by the counsel for the petitioner to allow this application seeking leave to file appeal against the said judgment. The application stands dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )