Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though his name, as eye witness, is in the FIR of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003, his name was not included in the charge-sheet as witness. The informant filed a protest petition wherein also petitioners name was as an eye-witness. The witnesses who were examined during trial, have also named this petitioner as an eye-witness in their deposition, as he was present at the place of occurrence. Even then the petitioners application filed on 3.9.2005, for examining him as an eye-witness, has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Siwan vide order dated 8.9.2005. A copy of the deposition of one of the eye-witnesses has also been annexed to the writ petition from which it transpires that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and his statement was taken by the police.

3. In such a circumstance rejection of the petitioners petition, praying for examining him as an eye-witness, is against the material on the record. It is essential that all the relevant evidence must be brought before the trial Court for proper adjudication of the case.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Siwan is hereby quashed.

5. The trial Court is directed to examine the petitioner, Kedar Nath Singh, as witness after issuing notice to him. The notice must be issued by fixing date of examining him so that he may avail this opportunity. In case he fails to appear on that date then no opportunity should be given to him.