Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42091/2014disposed

Shambhu Nath Keshri v. The State Of Bihar Through The S.P. Vigilance, Patna

2017-09-11Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42091 of 2014 Arising Out of Vigilance Case No. -65 Year- 2013 Thana -Vigilance District- PATNA =========================================================== Shambhu Nath Keshri Son of Late Mahendra Prasad Keshri, resident of mohalla - Purabsarai, Police Station - Kotwali, Distt - Munger, at the time of occurrence posted as Block Education Officer, Choutam Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the S. P., Vigilance, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arjun Prasad Keshari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Adv.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-09-2017

1. Heard both sides and perused the record.

2. This criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed to quash the order dated 3rd December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in Special Case No. 22 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below finding prima facie case against the petitioner, took cognizance for the offences under sections 7/13

(2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

3. As per order dated 29.08.2017, a report was called for from the learned Court below as regards stage of trial. The Court below has reported that charge, against the petitioner, has been framed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42091 of 2014 dt.11-09-2017 2/2 on 2nd June 2015 and out of 11 charge sheet witnesses, 04 have already been examined. The learned Court below has further reported that it will take one year in conclusion of trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below may be directed to expedite the trial as the petitioner is being harassed since 2013..

5. The petitioner was allegedly trapped by Vigilance while taking bribe of Rs.4,000/-. The Court below finding sufficient materials, has framed charges and out of 13 charge sheet witnesses, 4 have been examined. As such, I do not find any merit in this application requiring any interference in the impugned order.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal miscellaneous application is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to expedite the trial.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) Mahesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.09.2017 Transmission Date 24.09.2017