Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. State being aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 1993, declining the prayer made by the prosecution to examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, has preferred this revision application.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that on the basis of statement given by the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Begusarai police station case under Sections 353 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused persons. According to the prosecution, accused persons resorted to firing on a police party by semi-automatic rifle and country made pistol when the police party raided the premises where the accused persons were hiding and making planning to commit crime. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed on 19.6.2002 and although several opportunities were given to the prosecution to lead evidence but not a single witness was examined to support the case. Ultimately by order dated 10.3.2006 prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of all the three accused persons were recorded. Thereafter the case was adjourned for orders to 31.3.2006 under Section 232 of the Code. It is only after the case was posted for orders under Section 232 of the Code that the prosecution woke up and filed application on 13.3.2006 with attendance of five witnesses seeking permission to reopen the case and examine the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code. In the application it was stated that witnesses in fact had turned up on 10.3.1996 but due to late running of the train, they could not appear in time. It seems that the said application was placed for consideration before the In-charge Court and in the order-sheet it noted the fact of five witnesses being present. The learned Judge adjourned the case to 31.3.2006 directing the witnesses to furnish personal bond. Thereafter the witnesses furnished the personal bond and the order-sheet does indicate that the same were accepted. Later on, it seems that the learned Judge realised that he is only an Incharge Court and therefore, ought not to have passed any order and thereafter scored out the order-sheet of the said date and passed a fresh order adjourning the case to 13.4.2006, stating therein that the Presiding Officer of the Court is on casual leave.

3. I had inquired from the Registry, the name of the Incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Begusarai on 13.3.2006 and it has been reported that Shri Bashishta Kumar Shuk-la was the Incharge. The conduct of the Officer in scoring out the order-sheet is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. It is in the realm of surmises and conjecture as to why after signing the order he scored out the same. In case, being an Incharge Court he later on realised that he was expected to pass only routine orders, he ought to have indicated the same. It is not expected of a judicial officer to sign the order and then score it out without indicating anything. This creates doubt in the mind of the litigant. Justice must not only be done but appear to have been done is deeply engraved in our system. The learned Judge while scoring out the orders forgot this basic principle.

4. On the adjourned dated i.e. 13.4.2006, prosecution filed attendance of six witnesses. The learned Judge adjourned the case for hearing on the appli cation filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code for examination of the witnesses to 17.4.2006. The learned Judge heard the application on several dates and ultimately by order dated 29.5.2006 rejected the prayer of the prosecution, inter alia, holding that the prosecution was highly negligent and "it failed to produce even a s