AMBIKA PRASAD SINHA Vs. RAMA NAND RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both parties.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner being informant is making petitions before the Court below and also coming to this Court again and again and in that way an occurrence of 1972 is being lingered for more than three decades and the trial has not been concluded. By the impugned order dated 9.2.2000. the Assistant Sessions Judge. IV Patna has closed the prosecution evidence in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1982. In the year 1994 while the informant witnesses from the side of the prosecution had already been examined, a petition was filed from the side of the prosecution that more charges under Section 395/397, IPC are required to be framed and by the order dated 23.11.1994 the then 4th Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna had considered after hearing the parties and the rejoinders thereof and ordered that the matter shall be disposed of only after getting the copy of the case diary and as such the copy of the case diary was called for but the same had not been reached for long. Then by the impugned order the Learned Sessions Judge has closed the prosecution evidence. But it appears that while closing the prosecution evidence he has not disposed of the earner petition filed for framing of additional charges and rejoinders thereof. That ought to have been disposed of. It is not known as to what was the necessity of calling for the case dairy for framing of additional charges when already witnesses had been examined in the case. When evidence is there on oath before the Court then on the basis of those evidence the Court has to consider whether there is any necessity of framing of any additional charge or not. It is true that the Learned Sessions Judge was very much anxious that the trial should be concluded as the same is lingered for last three decades but then such closure of evidence must be done legally. Before closing of the prosecution evidence he ought to have disposed of the earlier petition which was entertained vide the order dated 23.11.1994. In that way this revision petition is disposed of directing the 4th Assistant Sessions Judge. Patna to dispose of the petition and the rejoinders thereof regarding additional charges first within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he should consider that aspect only on the materials on record and not to consider any extra materials. If additional charges are required to be famed, the same should be farmed within next 15 days and then proceed with further trial and closing the prosecution evidence within three months next thereof without entertaining any further petition either from the prosecution side or from the defence side. The impugned order is modified to the extent as mentioned above.