IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15590 of 2008 1.SAKALDEEP SHARMA son of Bishundayal Sharma 2.Pradeep Sharma son of Bishundayal Sharma 3.Bhola Nath Bhagat son of late Kapildeo Bhagat 4.Chandeshwar Rai son of late Ram Dhari Rai 5.Ram Dayal Paswan son of Yadu Paswan 6.Sabitri Devi wife of Sakaldeep Sharma All 1 to 6 are resident of village-Sahdullahpur, P.S.-Gangabridge, Dist.-Vaishali. …… ……Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… ……Opp.Party ----------- 2. 25.6.2010. Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Vaishali, in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2000 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.209 of 1990. By the said order the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that for the ends of justice it is necessary to further cross-examine the witnesses and the learned trial Judge without appreciating the point has rejected the petition. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that in this case first 2 information report was lodged long back in the year 1990 and the petition was filed in the garb of recalling the witnesses only with a view to further delay the trial. Accordingly, she has prayed to reject the petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials on record. It appears that the first information report was lodged on 18.7.1990 for the offences under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all six petitioners were named in the first information report as accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to paragraph-6 of the petition submits that in this case though first information report was lodged in the year 1990, charge sheet was submitted on 30.5.2002 under sections 304/34 and 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that, while prosecution evidence was almost complete, the accused persons on 27.10.2007 filed a petition for recalling P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for further cross- examination. It appears that all the aforesaid witnesses were discharged after their full cross examination by the defence. On perusal of the impugned order this court is satisfied that while rejecting the petition the trial court has committed no error. The court is of the opinion that the petition dated 27.10.2007 was filed only with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial. It is not in dispute that occurrence had taken place long back in the year 1990 and surprisingly the trial has not concluded till date. Keeping in view the fact that the case is pending since long, besides rejecting the petition, it is desirable to direct the trial 3 court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is also directed that the trial court will take up the trial of the present case atleast twice in a week and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)