Ghanshyam Das @ Tanti v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2015 ===========================================================
1. Ghanshyam Das @ Tanti S/o Ram Prasad Tanti, Resident of village- Tulapati, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahanti Tanti S/o Late Musal Tanti, Resident of village- Tulapati, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul .... .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Shashi Shekhar Kishore, Adv For the Respondent/s : Ms. Sahin Begum, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-03-2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.11.2014 passed in S.T. No. 47 of 2010/ 1933 of 2014 in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 144 of 2008 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Supaul, has rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the Doctor and the Investigating Officer for being examined on behalf of the prosecution.
The petitioner is the informant of the said Pipra P.S. Case No. 144 of 2008 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
I have perused the impugned order from which it
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.171 of 2015 dt.07-03-2017 2/2 appears that the matter was put up for pronouncement of the judgment when the petitioner filed application for issuance of summons to the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. The learned court below has recorded that enough opportunity was given before closure of prosecution evidence to examine Investigating Officer and the Doctor and summonses, Bailable Warrants and Non Bailable Warrants of arrest had been issued.
In such circumstance, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Secondly, it appears that this application has become infructuous as there was no stay granted by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court as to whether judgment has been delivered by the court below or not. I do not find any reason why the judgment would not have been delivered by now after lapse of two years from the date when the matter was placed for judgment.
This application is meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 09.03.2017 Transmission Date 09.03.2017