The court emphasized the importance of concluding the trial at the earliest and considered the petitioner's conduct as an advocate in the case as a factor in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.T. No. 503 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition filed on behalf of the informant for marking the certified copy of FIR and the charge-sheet of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 as exhibits in the Sessions Trial No. 503 of 2012.

3. It has been the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the informant of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2012 and in connection with the said case, S.T. No. 503 of 2012 is pending before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai. The informant of this case was conducting lawyer in a case arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 and being a conducting lawyer of the said case, he was assaulted by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and other co-accused persons. So, the FIR and the charge sheet in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 become relevant for the purpose of S.T. No. 503 of 2012. When the informant/petitioner of this case moved an application for marking of aforesaid two documents as exhibits, the learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that a considerable time period has elapsed since the examination of PW-2 as the prosecution witness. It has further been submitted that the order sheet contains the factual error as it mentions Pratima Devi is the informant of the case, but she is not the informant in the present case i.e. S.T. No. 503 of 2012. Further reason for rejection was that the documents were within the knowledge of the informant but no sufficient reasons for not filing the documents at that stage was given in the petition and allowing the petition at that stage would prejudice the defence and also cause the delay in the decision of this case. On these grounds, the petition was dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was filed before the learned trial court on 21.05.2019 by this petitioner (informant) for exhibiting the FIR and the charge sheet of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007, admittedly public documents which could be marked exhibits without any formal proof under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner was conducting lawyer of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 against the accused persons and therefore, they assaulted him and the present occurrence has also taken place. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed the petition dated 21.05.2019, but the learned court below has wrongly mentioned that the informant Pratima Devi has filed the said petition for marking exhibits the certified copy of the FIR and the charge sheet of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007. The learned counsel further reiterates that as the petitioner was doing his duty in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 against the accused persons, they assaulted him and the occurrence as mentioned in the FIR of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2012 has taken place. So, the FIR and the charge-sheet of the said case become relevant documents for the purpose of adjudication.

5. The learned counsel further submits that if the documents are not taken on record and marked as exhibits, the petitioner would have no case before the learned trial court and simply because the petition for marking the documents as exhibits has been filed at a belated stage, it should not be dismissed. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the present petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the learned trial court be directed to mark those documents as exhibits in S.T. No. 503 of 2012.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 opposes the prayer submitting that the petitioner has filed an application o