IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14395 of 2007 VISHWANATH RAM KASERA @ VISHWANATH SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 11.9.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner who is complainant of Complaint Case No.875 of 1996 is against the learned Magistrate having closed the prosecution case vide order dated 15.11.2006 and the same having been approved in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram vide order dated 14.12.2006. It appears that in the complaint case charges were framed on 24.1.2003 and ever since upto 4.5.2006, only one witness was examined on behalf of the complainant and when the prosecution case was closed by the learned Magistrate, the learned counsel for the petitioner took the plea that the complainant was ill and, therefore, time may be given. It appears that time was indeed granted to the petitioner- complainant after imposing a cost and after dismissal of the revision. Even before this Court he has made the same prayer that he may be given one indulgence to examine his witnesses in the interest of justice. One wonders what the “substantial justice” for the complainant is. Is prolonging the litigation for three and half years and examining only one witness “substantial justice”. Will his purpose - 2 - of “substantial justice” be solved by protracting the litigation for ages? For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)