IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20304 of 2008 1. SINGHASAN MAHTO 2. AWADH KISHORE MAHTO, BOTH SON OF LATE BANSHI MAHTO 3. UPENDRA MAHTO, SON OF LATE BINDHYACHAL 4. GHANSHYAM MAHTO, SON OF RAM NATH MAHTO, ALL RESIDENT OF VILALGE DHAMINAHA, POLICE STATION SATHI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …… PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMCHHTRI MAHTO, SON OF RAMSHAKAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAMINAHA, POLICE STATION SATHI, DISTRIC WEST CHAMPARAN …. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 18.4.2011 The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bettiah, District West Champaran in Criminal Revision No.246 of 2007, by which it has affirmed the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bettiah in Sathi P.S. case No.72 of 1998 (T.R.No.145 of 2007), by which an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Since the Trial Court was of the view that the examination of the mother of the informant was essential for the just decision of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the Trial Court is directed to grant only one date for examination of the witness and not linger the case any further. It should positively conclude the proceeding within a period of six months if it has not done so already. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )