ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State.

3. From the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by this Court, it appears that further proceeding before the learned court below was stayed till submission of police report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. as against the petitioner. The status report as received from the learned court below indicates that after passing of the order dated 26.07.2011, on 16.09.2011 supplementary charge sheet was submitted as against Gopinath Saha and the present petitioner (Piush Kumar Gupta). It has also been reported that the learned predecessor of the learned court below found sufficient material and prima-facie case against Gopinath Saha and Piush Kumar Gupta and fixed the record on 20.12.2011 for appearance.

4. The report of the learned court below indicates that thereafter neither the order sheet has been updated since 20.03.2012 nor the record was ever put up before the learned predecessor of the Court. Accordingly, the record was never entered in the G.R. Register of the learned court below, nor ever uploaded on C.I.S. An explanation was also called for from the concerned dealing persons and being unsatisfied with the explanation, the matter has already been reported to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa for necessary action.

5. Learned S.D.J.M., Porahat who has submitted the status report of the case has sought permission by this court or by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa for uploading the case record on C.I.S. and also entering in the G.R. Register of the court so that it may be put up again at the stage of appearance.

6. This court finds that the interim order dated 26.07.2011 was passed only till submission of police report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. as against the petitioner and it appears that supplementary charge sheet has already been submitted on 16.09.2011 and accordingly the interim order dated 26.07.2011 does not survive after submission of the charge sheet as against the petitioner.

7. It has now come to the notice of this Court that in spite of the aforesaid, record was neither uploaded on C.I.S. nor entered in the G.R. Register of the learned court below. In such circumstances the learned court below is directed to do the needful such that the present case record is updated on the C.I.S. and also entered in the G.R. Register of the court concerned and the case be put up for appearance of the petitioner.

8. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware regarding filing of the supplementary charge sheet. He submits that the entire case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had no role to play in the matter and the petitioner had acted on the basis of the certificate issued by the Sarpanch regarding legal heirs of the deceased and consequently the post death benefits were released. Learned counsel submits that the case diary as well as the supplementary case diary including charge sheet in connection with the present case may be called for so as to figure out if any role is at all assigned to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had no role to play and even the allegation of conspiracy is not founded on any material.

9. Considering the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the State Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan is directed to produce the case diary as well as supplementary case diary along with the two charge sheets submitted in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 141 of 2001. The learned counsel for the State is also directed to file a counter affidavit in this case with specific reference to the material collected against the petitioner including his ro