D.N.PRASAD,J. - (1.) BOTH the Cr. M.P. No. 236 of 2002 and Cr. M.P. No. 40 of 2002 were heard together as both are related to the same case and by this common order, both the applications are being disposed of.
(2.) CR . M.P. No. 40 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.11.2001 in R.C. case No. 10 of 1989 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Dhanbad and also expunging the evidence of prosecution witness No. 6 whose evidence was recorded in defiance of the order of this Court on 12.7.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001, whereas another Cr. M.P. No. 236 of 2002 has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.11.2001, whereby the learned Special Judge had closed the prosecution and had fixed the case for recording the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr PC. The prosecution case in brief as alleged that accused/petitioner for having demanded a sum of Rs. 600/ - from the complainant for releasing and remitting family pension of the mother of the complainant and accordingly the RC. 10(A)/89 -D was registered against the petitioner. The trial started and live witnesses have already been examined. The Special Judge, after hearing the parties closed the case in view of Rajdeo Sharma's case, reported in 1999 (2) East Cr C 274. Thereafter the prosecution filed a petition for adducing further evidence and for reopening of the case and that application was rejected by the Court below on 16.11.2000. The petitioner (CBI) filed Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001 before this Court against the order dated 16.11.2000 and the said order dated 16.11.2001 was quashed by giving a direction to the prosecution (CBI) to adduce evidence in the trial Court and complete the case within four months from the date of the order. It is claimed by the petitioner (CBI) that the prosecution tried to complete the evidence but all the witnesses could not be examined and the Court below without giving further opportunity to the prosecution closed the prosecution case by the order impugned.
(3.) THE grievance of the accused/ petitioner as alleged in Cr. M.P. No. 40 of 2002 that the witness PW 6 is not a charge sheeted witness who was examined on 23.11.2001 inspite of specific direction of this Court to close the prosecution case within four months from 12.7.2001. The Special Judge though closed the case by the order impugned but examined the witness PW 6 in defiance of the order/direction of the High Court, which is fit to be quashed and the evidence of PW 6 should not be taken into account.;