IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1050 of 2009 Md.Anwar Hussain @ Md.Anwar, son of Late Md. Saiuddin, resident of village-Kaswa, P.S.-Balia, District- Begusarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Md. Hanoon, son of Late Abdul Sattar, resident of village- Kaswa, P.S.-Balia, District- Begusarai. ----------- 4. 01.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in S.T.No.406 of 1997 by which the petition dated 21.01.2009 filed by the petitioner for taking into consideration of the certain documents has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petition dated 21.01.2009 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for taking into consideration the certified copy of the F.I.R., Fardbeyan and charge-sheet of Balia P.S.Case No.63/1988, G.R. No.930/88 under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The certified copy of the order dated 2.12.1996 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Balia in Case No.389-M/1996 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to show the enmity between family of the accused petitioner and the deceased Md. 2 Sattar and these documents are helpful in arriving of the just decision of the case. The documents were not in possession of the accused and hence that could not be filed earlier. Only two days before the certified copy of the documents have been obtained and thereafter the petition has been filed. Those documents are public documents and there is no necessity to prove them to mark exhibit, therefore, those documents may be marked exhibited and taken into consideration. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the petition of the petitioner on the ground that the accused wants to delay the matter and no provision has been mentioned under which these documents should be marked. Learned counsel for the State submits that the accused including the petitioner have been lingering the case on one ground or the other and two different applications were filed on behalf of the accused petitioner in this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.32410/99 and Cr. Misc. No.12959/01, but both the applications have been rejected by this Court. The case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. dated 2.12.2006 had been mentioned in the aforesaid petition, but in the present petition dated 21.01.09 filed before the 3 learned trial court, it has been contended that the order of the learned S.D.M. has lastly come to the knowledge of the petitioner and he has been able to procure these documents from village only two days before. The above two statements being contradictory show the bad intention of the defence. Prosecution case was closed on 16.10.2006 and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.11.2006. Thereafter, accused including the petitioner had been to the Patna High Court by filing one petition or the other vide Cr. Misc. No.32410/99 and Cr. Misc. No.12959/01 for recalling the prosecution witness have been dismissed by the Patna High Court. He has further stated that sufficient opportunity has been given to the accused and thereafter the defence evidence was closed. The final argument on behalf of the prosecution was completed and thereafter, this petition has been filed by the accused only to delay the trial which is not maintainable. The learned trial court has found that the documents filed by the petitioner are not relevant to the case and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as 4 other materials on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. It further appears that the petitioner and other accused are in habit of delaying the trial of this case, which is pending for the year 1997. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)