The duty of the trial court to ensure fair trial, actively participate in the trial, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality to the parties and the community it serves.

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.-The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Gaya in S.T.No. 350/2006 arising out of Tikari P.S. Case No. 159/2004 by which the accused opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342 and 302 of the I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.11.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons including the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 armed with various weapons came to the house of the informant abused and took away her husband Brahamdeo Yadav (deceased) and threatened the family members not to come out from their house and Brahmdeo Yadav was taken towards the house of Krishna Yadav. In the morning, when the informant went near the house of the Krishna Yadav, her husband was found dead having several wounds. The reason for the occurrence is there is litigation between the deceased and the accused. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed on 10.08.2007. After the trial, the accused were acquitted vide the impugned order.

3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it appears that charges were framed against the accused on 10.08.2007. The order was passed to issue summons to the witnesses and the notices were also issued on 17.08.2007, but the petitioner did not get the summons/notice for evidence and without examining any material witnesses, the evidence has been closed. Only PW 1 Murari Prasad has been examined, who is formal witness and has proved the signature of S.I. Ram Rup Das.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the case. The trial of the other accused has also been held in which the informant petitioner has given her evidence and she did not depose in this case knowingly. The other accused have also been acquitted in which the prosecution has adduced evidence.

5. He has further submitted that at the time of institution of Tekari P.S. Case No. 159/03, there are 12 named accused and unknown accused. The trial of Charitra Yadav and Sita Devi have been split up being S.T.No. 104/2005 and six witnesses including the petitioner was examined and the accused have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2008. In S.T.No. 305/06, the prosecution was given sufficient time to examine the witnesses and in compliance of the order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 23806/2007, the charges were framed and trial had to be concluded within 9 months. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya was also directed to produce charge-sheet witnesses so that the trial of Sessions Case No. 305/2006 is complete positively within nine months. Even after this order, the petitioner and other witnesses were not examined and the Court finding no way out has to take a decision in pursuance to the aforesaid order of this Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the trial Court records, it appears that charges were framed against the accused opposite parties on 10.08.2007 in pursuance to the order dated 17.07.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23806/2007, the learned trial Court had been directed to frame charges against the accused and the Superintendent of Police, Gaya was also directed to produce the charge-sheet witnesses so that the trial of Sessions Case No. 350/2006 is concluded as early as possible in any case within nine months from the date of receipt/ production of the copy of that order. This order was passed keeping in view of the fact that the accused Mahendra Yadav, opposite party No. 4 was in custody w.e.f. 24.09.2005 and Vijay Yadav, opposite party No. 6 was in custody w.e.f. 29.09.2005.

7. It appears from the trial Court records that order was passed for issuance of notice