IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56990 of 2007 ANIL KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 02-09-2008 Heard Sri Dinesh Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is the informant of Marhawra P.S. Case No.46 of 2003 is aggrieved by and has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by Sri Rama Nand Sharma, District & Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr.Revision No.261 of 2007, whereby while upholding the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by Sri Sampat Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saran at Chapra in the aforesaid Marhawra P.S.case. , he has dismissed the revision. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 7.9.2007 had closed the prosecution case. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that altogether seven witnesses had been examined by the prosecution on its behalf, all of whom had supported the case of the prosecution and the story of theft and by reason thereof a petition was filed by the prosecution for adding the charge of Section 379 I.P.C. against the accused persons, but the learned Magistrate rejected the same vide order dated 10.7.2006. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whereas 10 persons have been named in the charge sheet as witnesses of the prosecution, of whom except P.W.7 who had been examined in part, the remaining three witnesses , all of whom were official witnesses, namely, Dr. Devendra Prasad of the Government Hospital , Marhawra, - 2 - A.S.I. Kamlesh Jha and A.S.I Hari Nandan Yadav, who were the Investigating Officers , remained to be examined and the learned Magistrate without issuing any summons or any other process for their appearance in court as official witnesses hurriedly closed the prosecution case by the impugned order. The reason given for closure of the prosecution case as available in the order of the learned Magistrate is that last chance was given to the prosecution for evidence on 9.5.2007 and no heed was paid to the direction of the court. It is unfortunate that the Magisterial court was remiss of the fact that a summon is required to be sent by the court to official witnesses for their evidence in court. This, the court not having done it could not take the plea that sufficient time had been granted to the prosecution to produce its witnesses. In the given situation, I am unable to accept the reasoning assigned by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and hurriedly closing the prosecution case. The procedural law is required to be adhered to. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate had fallen in error for not issuing summons to the doctor as also the two Investigating Officers who were necessary witnesses for the prosecution. Accordingly the impugned order of the learned Magistrate as also the revisional court are hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-