Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by informant for setting aside the judgment/ order of acquittal dated 16.01.2013 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, III, Barh, Patna in S. Tr. No. 888 of 2008, arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2004, lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 379 and 307 of the I.P.C., 1860 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act by which, the charge-sheeted accused persons, i.e. respondent no. 2 and 3 had been acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment/ order of acquittal has been passed in utter violation of Rule 18 of Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, as the learned Trial Court miserably failed to satisfy itself that a valid service of notices, summons, processes were served to the witnesses during the trial. He further submits that without serving the notices to the prosecution witnesses and without examining the same, the evidences of the prosecutions were closed and judgment/ order of acquittal has been passed which is wholly erroneous, unlawful and bad in the eye of law and, therefore, fit to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 16.01.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008 as after the amendment in Cr.P.C., 1973, i.e. by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, liberty has been granted to the victim to prefer appeal in case of acquittal. He submits that petitioner is informant and being a victim has filed the said criminal appeal alongwith limitation petition annexing the entire order-sheet of the Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008 on 16.03.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing the said Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 has pleased to called for a report from the Lower Court vide its Order No. 6 dated 26.03.2019 as to “whether there happens to be presence of execution report on the record or not ?” Another report was also called for i.e. record from the Dy. S.P., Barh with regard to action, if any taken in pursuance of D.O. Letter No. 347 dated 22.12.2011 or not. From the perusal of Order No. 8 dated 09.04.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019, it is evident that no execution report with regard to service of summons to the witnesses is/ are available on the record and only, therefore, this Hon’ble Court has pleased to issue notice to the accused/ respondents. Counsel also submits that it is also true that during pendency of the trial, one accused, namely, Rajendra Prasad Yadav (R-2) died on 26.06.2015 and, therefore, his name was expunged from the list of the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide Order No. 18 dated 24.09.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019, this Hon’ble Court has pleased to grant liberty to the appellant of the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2019 (present petitioner) to transpose his memo of appeal as a petition purported to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering all the legal questions involved therein including the question of limitation that from the date of knowledge of the judgment, the appeal was preferred within period of 90 days and as such, there happens to be no question of limitation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that commitment of criminal case before the Session being Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2008 had taken place on 05.06.2008. After commitment, appearance of the accused persons were made vide order dated 10.09.2008. Charges have been framed in this case before the Sessions Court on 02.11.2009, thereafter summons was issued upon the PWs but there is no service report in general or in the light of specific Rule, namely, R