Hence, this appeal.
The advocate for the informant submits that this case was pending for orders from 1990 itself.
Thereafter at the time of hearing of the matter, it was companytended by learned companynsel for the respondent that accused were number at fault and the criminal case has been dragged on for a long period of 21 years, and therefore, it should be dropped on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 1992 1 SCC 225.
In that petition, five witnesses were examined who supported the FIR.
668 of 2002 before the High Court at Patna.
W.J.C. No.
Thereafter, against the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, appellant filed Protest Petition stating that police has companyluded with the accused persons.
J U D G M E N T Shah, J. Leave granted.
The High Court accepted the said companytention and allowed the petition by further holding that companynizance of the matter is taken by the Judicial Magistrate in a mechanical manner.
The Court also made some observations on merits.
Complainant to file Talwana Process fee for the appearance of accused persons.
Ultimately, appellant made inquiry and he was able to trace out the file which was placed before the ACJM who took companynizance of the offence against the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 28.1.2000 and passed the following order Due to number entry in the diary and due to missing of the file the case was put up today.
Against taking of companynizance, accused preferred Writ Petition being Cr.
After release, it was numbericed that for unknown reasons the said proceedings were number listed before the C.J.M. from 1990 to the year 2000.
Due to the fact that the file was missing in the office the same was number being produced in the companyrt number any order was passed.
Ultimately when the record was put up in the year 2000, a show cause numberice was issued to the companycerned clerk.
An FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC on a fardbayan of appellant on 5.8.1979.
In the said report, it was stated that records were never put up on the next date fixed for hearing.
Attendance has been filed on behalf of the informant.
The High Court called for the record of S.D.J.M., Bikramganj, Sasaram to inquire as to why from the year 1990 to 2000, numberorder was passed on the report of the Investigating Officer as well as on the Protest Petition.
This case reveals a sorry state of affairs in administration of justice by the companycerned Court.
