Shambhu Sharan Sinha v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14938 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1980 Year- 2015 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA =========================================================== Shambhu Sharan Sinha S/o Late Ram Nath Mahto, R/o Mohalla- Koeri Tola, Chak Musallahpur, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, Post Office- Mahendru, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Subhash Kumar, Advocate S/o Sri Baban Singh, R/o Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra, Gali No. 1, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Post Office- Kadam Kuan, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Patna in Compliant Case No. 1980(C) of 2015 whereby the court below has refused to recall P.W- 1 Shashank Sagar and P.W-2 Neerad Prasad for their cross-examination. 3.
Section 135 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be tried summarily. The trial of the cases under this section, as far as practicable, is to be continued from day to day until its conclusion
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14938 of 2018 dt.31-08-2018 2/2 unless the court finds the adjournment of trial beyond following date to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. 4.
The petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution on three different dates. However, when the petition was filed, the learned Magistrate found no reason for summoning the witnesses already discharged but keeping in mind just decision of the case he allowed crossexamination of complainant while rejecting the application for crossexamination of the two other formal witnesses. 5.
In that view of the matter, I see no illegality in the impugned order. The application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Kanchan/SkSuman.
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date04.09.2018 Transmission Date 04.09.2018