H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2009, whereby, on an application filed by the prosecution against the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by learned Trial Court closing the prosecution evidence, the Revisional Court has granted three months further time to the prosecution for proving its documents, which were filed in the Court below, prior to the closing of the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court, which shows that the applications were filed on 1.9.2005 and 27.1.2006 on behalf of the prosecution for proving two sale deeds and one vakalatnama. The said applications were not pressed for a considerably long time and when they were pressed on 20.9.2008, the applications were rejected by the Trial Court and the prosecution evidence was closed. By the impugned order dated 26.3.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2009, the learned Sessions Judge on the revision application filed by the prosecution, has set aside the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court below and allowed the prosecution to produce rest of the witnesses within three months.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely illegal, inasmuch, as it unduly prolonged the trial, which had already been prolonged for a considerably long time. Learned counsel has accordingly submitted that the impugned order cannot be maintained in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the applications were filed well within time and it is not a case that after closing of the prosecution evidence, the prosecution had filed the applications for proving documents, rather, the prosecution had filed the applications to prove the documents when the prosecution evidence was still going on and on 20.9.2008, the applications of the prosecution were rejected and the prosecution evidence was also closed.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the learned Revisional Court had considered these facts and had come to the conclusion that the last witness of the prosecution was examined on 14.7.2008 and the impugned order was passed on 20.9.2008. Accordingly, the revisional Court set aside the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court and directed the prosecution to produce rest of the witnesses within three months, failing which, the prosecution evidence was directed to be closed. Admittedly, the applications were filed on 1.9.2005 and 27.1.2006 on behalf of the prosecution for proving two sale deeds and one vakalatnama, much prior to closing the prosecution evidence. As such, the learned revisional Court had rightly given a reasonable time to the prosecution for examining rest of its witnesses. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;