JUDGMENT :

This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for directing the trial court to conclude the trial of Pirpainti P.S.Case No. 291 of 2015 dated 21.10.2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3911 of 2015 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 31.12.2015 against the petitioner and four other accused persons. Thereafter, the learned ACJM-XI, Bhagalpur vide order dated 07.04.2016 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the IPC and summoned the accused persons to face trial. On receipts of summonses, the petitioner and four other accused persons appeared before the court and substance of accusation was explained to them on 22.02.2017. Thereafter, summonses were issued to the witnesses. Till date, only one witness has been examined out of several charge-sheet witnesses. He contended that in the trial court the case is frequently being adjourned from one date to another mechanically in absence of the prosecution witnesses.

3. He urged that the petitioner is an educated unemployed youth. He had appeared in the Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination, 2015 on 25.09.2016. His physical and medical test was conducted on 26.11.2016 in Dumka whereafter he was declared successful for the post of Constable for Sahibganj district. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj vide memo no. 813 dated 15.03.2017 directed the petitioner to submit the original certificates and documents on 20.03.2017 before the Sergeant Major, Police Centre, Sahibganj for verification. Vide memo no. 2452 dated 05.09.2017, the petitioner was informed that in course of verification of character, it was found that Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 291 of 2015 has been found true against him under Sections 341, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the IPC and he has not been acquitted by the court. He was directed to submit final order of the court within ten days failing which the order of appointment would be cancelled. He contended that because of pendency of the instant false case the entire career of the petitioner is at stake. He urged that the manner in which the trial of the petitioner is being conducted is totally unfair and is also against the spirit of the procedure prescribed for trial of summons cases.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that efforts are being made to produce the witnesses in course of trial. He submitted that there is neither any violation of the procedure prescribed for holding trial of summons cases nor the trial of the petitioner is being conducted in unfair manner. He contended that the State would ensure that all the remaining witnesses are examined within three months from today.

5. The report called for from the learned ACJM-IX, Bhagalpur regarding the status of the trial vide order dated 22.04.2019 has been received. He has reported that the substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons on 22.02.2017. Thereafter, summonses and bailable warrants were issued to the witnesses on 06.07.2017 and 22.04.2019 respectively. However, only one witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. It is further reported that the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution on 11.06.2019.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record, I find that the petitioner is being prosecuted in a summons case.

7. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are two types of cases. They are summons cases and warrant cases.

8. Under Section 2(x) of the Cr.P.C, warrant-case has been defined as a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.

9. Summons case has been