- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code ') the petitioner has challenged the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court, by reason of which petitioner 's prayer for closing the prosecution case has been rejected. Admittedly the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and is on bail. There is no dispute that the trial is pending for more than two years from the date of framing of charge. On 17.2.99 the petitioner filed a petition for closing the case and for his discharge. The same was rejected by the learned trial court and ultimately affirmed by the revisional court on being moved by the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that none of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of ''Common Cause '' A Registered Society vs. Union of India and others [(1996) 4 SCC 33] or clarificatory order subsequent thereto will be applicable to, the case of the petitioner inasmuch as Directions No. 1(a)(b)(c) and 2(a) to (f) are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. According to him those directions were made by the Supreme Court where imprisonment is not exceeding three years and the accused is not on bail. Similarly, those directions will be applicable to such type of cases, which are compoundable with permission of the court. In a nut shell his argument is that the petitioner 's case does not come under the purview of any of the directions made by the Supreme Court. On the contrary he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar [(1998)3 BLJR 2196 : 1998 (3) PLJR 57] in sup port of his argument that even in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act their Lordships were of the view that in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the triad of the case. ;