IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.54 of 2011 GANGAI YADAV s/o Late Tejilal Yadav, P.S. Phulparas, District Madhubani. - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - .. Opposite party =========================================== 2. 11.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2009 arising out of Phulparas P. S. Case No. 222 of 2007 , G. R. No. 999 of 2007 by which defence evidence has been closed and the case has been fixed for arguments. Heard Mr. Lakshmendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid case and due to illness he could not appear in the court as a defence witness 2 and his prayer for adjournment had been dismissed and the case has been fixed for arguments. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that more than eleven times have been granted to the defence to produce their evidence. He further submits that it appears from the impugned order that certain direction has been given by the Bench of this Court to expedite the trial. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid case. The aforesaid sessions trial was pending since long time and accused persons had taken time on one pretext or the other. It was also submitted that the petitioner was healthy and a false medical certificate had been produced for his illness. It appears that the date of occurrence was 4.10.2007 and the charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 and other sections of I.P.C. on 28.5.2009. The prosecution evidence was closed on 13.7.2010 and eleven dates had been given to the defence including the 3 petitioner to produce their evidence and thereafter the defence evidence was closed on 6.10.2010. On 2.11.2010 a petition under Section 311, 315, 233(3) Cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the accused for defence evidence and some documents have been marked as exhibits. The case was fixed for 19.11.2010 for the evidence of the petitioner but he did not appear. Ultimately, the case was fixed for 26.11.2010 and on that date also the petitioner could not produce himself for his defence witness as such the defence evidence was closed on 20.12.2010 and the case was fixed for argument on 22.12.2010. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the informant that due to the pendency of this petition, the argument of the aforesaid sessions trial has not been concluded. In my opinion, sufficient time has been granted to the accused including the petitioner to adduce their evidence. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) 4