IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25965 of 2009 MANKU KUMAR @ MANKU SINGH, SON OF RAM BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BELAM BAZAR, P.S.- KASIM BAZAR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 13.8.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger whereby the application under Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected. The facts of the case are that earlier a First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that T.N. Sharma and Ram Nesh Kumar, son of T.N. Sharma had stolen the motorcycle of the informant Sunil Kumar Sinha. Sunil Kumar Sinha and the named accused persons in annexure-1 were working in the L.I.C. and there was dispute between them with respect to their professional work and as such the Investigating Officer found that T.N. Sharma and Ram Nesh Sharma have been wrongly 2 implicated in this case and as such submitted a final form in the case. Later vide annexure-3 the case was reopened on the ground that the Officer Incharge received information that stolen motorcycle of Sunil Kumar Sinha was in the possession and was being used by Rakesh Kumar. Subsequently, the motorcycle was also recovered from the possession of the said Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner has been made accused because the police witnesses have stated that Rakesh Kumar is said to have disclosed that he had purchased the motorcycle from one Manku Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not a single independent witness to support the fact that Manku Kumar had sold the motorcycle to Rakesh Kumar. It is further submitted that Rakesh Kumar had not made a confessional statement to say that he had purchased the motorcycle from Manku Kumar and as such according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is insufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the 3 petitioner had committed theft or he is liable under Section 411 of the India Penal Code. In the opinion of this Court, submissions made on behalf of the petitioner can only be considered when the witnesses are examined in Court and cross examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate the case made out by the petitioner. Learned counsel at this stage submits that the case is of the year 2002 and inordinate delay has been taken for concluding the trial. In the circumstances, the Court below is directed to take steps to expedite the trial. This Court cannot interfere with the proceedings. This application is therefore, dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)