IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.34752 of 2010
RAGHUNATH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2. 2.11.2010 No one appears in spite of calls.
The order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Sub-
divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, who refused to pass
an order on the application filed by the petitioner, who was an
accused in the court below, submitting therethrough that
accusation may not be explained to him under the facts of the
case, is impugned in the present petition. The learned trial court
has mentioned in its order that the provisions contained in
Section 245 Cr. P.C. were not applicable to the case which was
under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was further
observed by the learned court below that the case was pending
for prosecution evidence.
There is no reason not to accept the record of the
learned trial court that the case was fixed for evidence as the
above record must not have been made against the actual state of
affairs prevailing in the court below. If the case was fixed for
evidence, then, it is indicated that the stage of Section 251 had
already passed of and, as such, there could not be any reason to
maintain such a petition as filed by the petitioner.
For the above noted reason, the Court finds no
merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)
