RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.2.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in Hilsa ( K) P.S. Case No.449 of 1998 . By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of ox, which was claimed to be seized in connection with Hilsa ( K) P.S. Case No.449 of 1998.

(2.) The petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 1.2.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, approached this Court by filing the present petition and by the order dated 10.3.1999, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court directed that In the meantime the petitioner will be entitled to have custody of the ox in question on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Hilsa in connection with Hilsa ( K) P.S. Case No.449 of 1998. Subsequently, by the order dated 22.7.1999 this petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case for hearing, this Court directed that the interim order passed on 10.3.1999 shall continue in the meantime. The interim order of stay is still continuing. At the time of hearing on the question being asked by this Court regarding the stage of the trial , it was intimated jointly by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Opp.Party no.2 that the trial before the Magistrate is going on and some witnesses have already been examined.

(3.) Without going into the merit of the case, I am of the view that after expiry of more than 10 years from the date of handing over possession of the ox in question to the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to unsettle the earlier order of this Court, particularly in view of the fact that the trial is continuing. Instead of passing the order on merit, it would be appropriate that the trial court be directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far the entitlement to possession of the ox in question is concerned, the trial court would be competent to pass necessary orders after the conclusion of the trial. If the court below comes to the conclusion that Opp.Party no.2 was entitled to recover the possession of the ox in question after conclusion of the trial, then the appropriate order will be passed by the concerned court in the case. In the case of loss of ox in question the Opp.Party no.2 would be entitled to get the cost of the ox in question, if the trial comes to end in his favour.