Allowed¶6

Madhu Kumari Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2024CR. MISC./23810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court quashes rejection of Section 91 CrPC application for production of original documents in CBI RC 16(S)/2007; original document to be considered by Special Judge during trial; Bihar School Examination Board directed to produce documents within two months; trial to conclude early.

What did the court decide?

Quashing application allowed: order dated 07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 by the Exclusive Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna quashed; petitioner's application dated 18.11.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. allowed; Bihar School Examination Board directed to produce the evidence/document in Court within two months; Special Judge to conclude the trial at the earliest. ¶6

Madhu Kumari Sinha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 by the Exclusive Magistrate/ACJM, C.B.I, Patna rejecting the petitioner's application dated 18.11.2022 filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling the original document(s) should be quashed and the application allowed.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, if the original document is available, the same should be considered by the Special Judge during trial.

¶5

Key takeaways

The order dated 07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 is quashed and the petitioner's application dated 18.11.2022 is allowed.ratio¶6
The Bihar School Examination Board is directed to produce the evidence/document in the Court within two months of communication of this order, and the Special Judge will proceed thereafter and conclude the trial at the earliest.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sandeep Kumar, J.), Cr. Misc. No. 23810 of 2023, decided 01-07-2024: The Court quashed the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 by the Exclusive Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna, whereby the petitioner's application dated 18.11.2022 filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling the original document(s) had been rejected. Holding that in the interest of justice an original document, where available, should be considered by the Special Judge during trial, the Court allowed the petitioner's application and directed the Bihar School Examination Board to produce the document/evidence in Court within two months, with the Special Judge to thereafter conclude the trial at the earliest. Context: petitioner facing trial before Special Judge, CBI with charges framed; photocopy earlier marked for identification.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23810 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2007 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Madhu Kumari Sinha D/O Rajendra Prasad Resident Of House No- 31a, Income Tax Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, P.S- Agamkuan, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binit Kumar For the CBI : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, SPP(CBI) ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

10 01-07-2024

¶12

This is an application for quashing the order dated

¶13

07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 by the Exclusive Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna by which the court below has rejected the petition dated 18.11.2022 filed u/s 91 of the Cr.P.C.

¶14

2 . The Petitioner is facing trial in the court of Special Judge, CBI. Charges have been framed in the case. Earlier the photocopy of the document in question was marked for identification.

¶15

3 . Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the an application was filed for calling the original document/s which is available that is necessary for the just decision of the case and the same has been rejected.

¶16

4 . Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23810 of 2023(10) dt.01-07-2024 2/2

¶18

prayer and has submitted that petitioner wants to delay the trial and therefore these kind of tactics have been adopted.

¶19

5 . I am of the view that in the interest of justice if the original document is available, the same should be considered by the Special Judge during trial.

¶20

6 . In these circumstances, this application is allowed and the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in R.C. No. 16(S) of 2007 by the Exclusive Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna is hereby quashed and the application dated 18.11.2022 filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶21

7 . The Bihar School Examination Board is directed to produce the evidence in the Court within two months of communication of this order in the Court.

¶22

8 . The Special Judge will proceed thereafter and conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶23

9 . With the aforesaid observations, this application

¶24

is allowed.

¶25

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶26

Shishir/-

¶27

U T

Madhu Kumari Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Kumari Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Soni Vs the State of Bihar

Munchun Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sahjendra Prasad Singh @ Sahjendra Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Nadim Akram @ Mohammad Nadim Akram Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar