The advocate forthe informant submits that this case was pending fororders from 1990 itself.
Hence, this appeal.
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.
In that petition, fivewitnesses were examined who supported the FIR.
Thereafter, against the report submitted by theInvestigating Officer appellant filed Protest Petition stating thatpolice has companyluded with the accused persons.
668 of 2002 before the High Court at Patna.
The Court also madesome observation on merits.
Complainant to fileTalwana Process fee for the appearance of accusedpersons.
Today it has beenfound.
W.J.C. No.
Ultimately,appellant made inquiry and he was able to trace out the file which wasplaced before the ACJM who took companynizance of the offence againstthe respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 302IPC on 28.1.2000 and passed the following order Due to number entry in the diary and due to missingof the file the case was put up today.
After release, itwas numbericed that for unknown reasons the said proceedings were numberlisted before the C.J.M. from 1990 to the year 2000.
This case reveals a sorry state of affairs in administration of justice by the companycerned Court.
Due to the fact that the file wasmissing in the office the same was number being produced inthe companyrt number any order was passed.
An FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC on a fardbayan ofappellant on 5.8.1979.
Thereafter at the time of hearing of the matter, itwas companytended by learned companynsel for the respondent that accusedwere number at fault and the criminal case has been dragged on for a longperiod of 21 years, and therefore, it should be dropped on the basis ofthe decision rendered by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
Attendance hasbeen filed on behalf of the informant.
Ultimately when the record wasput up in the year 2000, a show cause numberice was issued to theconcerned clerk.
The High Court called for the record of S.D.J.M., Bikramganj, Sasaram toinquire as to why from the year 1990 to 2000, numberorder was passed onthe report of the Investigating Officer as well as on the ProtestPetition.
Against taking of companynizance, accused preferred Writ Petitionbeing Cr.
From the facts narrated above, it isclear that allegations against the accused were for the off encespunishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC.
When theInvestigating Officer submitted report, immediately a Protest Petitionwas filed inter alai companytending that investigation was biased and in theinquiry before the Court, it is the say of the appellant that fivewitnesses were examined.