IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18348 of 2009 SRI BABU CHAUDHARY, son of Late Chandradeo Chaudhary, village Bagahi, PS Runisaidpur, District Sitamarhi – Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Prabhu Dayal Chaudhary, son of Late Raghubansh Chaudhary, 3. Ajay Chaudhary, son of Prabhu Dayal Chaudhary, all of Bagahi, PS Runisaidpur, District Sitamarhi – Opposite parties. 2 4.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this case against the order, dated 6.12.2008 passed by Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Revision No. 31/2007 and the order, dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sitamarhi in GR No. 1521/1996, Trial No. 620/2006. The case relates to the year 1996. The trial began in this case and the evidence was closed on 27.10.2002. At that stage the I.O. and the doctor could not be produced by the prosecution. The petitioner moved for summoning the I.O. and the doctor for their examination in the case and by order, dated 22.6.2004 the revisional court directed that steps should be taken to ensure that the I.O. and the doctor should be produced by the prosecution to give their evidence. In this case summons were issued to both the doctor and the I.O. In fact Dasti summon was also served on the aforesaid two officers. The doctor appeared in the court and was examined as a prosecution witness. On 22.12.2006 the evidence was closed and the defence began its evidence on 11.1.2003. The petitioner who is informant of this case was 2 aggrieved by the fact that the I.O. could not be produced by the State for examination. It is submitted that the I.O. is an important witness as he has investigated the entire case. True it is that he is an important witness of the case. However, the matter cannot be delayed unnecessarily for years together because the I.O. is not appearing in the case. In the present case it cannot be said that service of notice were not served on the I.O. In fact summons were served and it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the I.O. Considering that there has been delay and adequate opportunity has been given to the prosecution to produce witnesses, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)