HRIDAY NARAYAN RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.06.2006 by which cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court for the offence, triable by the court of Sessions.

(3.) THE petitioner again approached this Court by submitting the present petition for the same relief and learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since mandatory provisions of law has not been complied with and, therefore, taking of cognizance by the trial court is bad in law. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th November, 2009 dismissed the earlier petition of the writ petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner failed to show what prejudice is likely to cause and in the present petition the petitioner has given the facts to show that because of these facts mentioned in the petition he will be prejudiced because of non examination of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,