- (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.2.2003 passed in R.C. Case No. 25(A)/94(D) whereby and where under the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases -cum -lst Additional District Judge, Dhanbad refused the prayer of the prosecution for reopening the prosecution evidence.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that pursuant to the complaint received by the C.B.I., Dhanbad by one S.H. Verma, Fitter Grade -I of Carriage and Wagon Department, Eastern Railway, Barwadih, CBI authorities registered FIR bearing RC Case No. 25(A)/94/(D) on 3.9.1994 against the O.P. No. 1 and 2 that while complainant was working in the office of Carriage and Wagon Department of Eastern Railway, Barwadih O.P. No. 1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ - from the complainant S.H. Verma for issuing release order. Accordingly a trap was laid and O. Ps. Nos. 1 and 2 were caught red handed on 2.9.1994 while demanding and accepting bribe money of Rs. 200/ - from the complainant. CBI, Dhanbad conducted an investigation into the case and filed charge sheet on 31.10.1994 under Section 120 -B, IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge -CBI cases -cum -1st Additional Session Judge, Dharbad along with the list of nine witnesses in support of the prosecution case, Cognizance in the case was taken and the charges were framed against the accused persons of the case on 1.5.1998. After framing of charges in the year 1998 prosecution examined witnesses and the accused persons filed petition on 6.5.2000 to close the prosecution evidence which was opposed by the prosecution by filing a rejoinder and the learned Court below vide its order dated 6.6.2000 rejected the prayer of defence for closure of the prosecution evidence in view of the Rejdeo Sharma s case and the trial Court allowed one year time to the prosecution for completion of the prosecution evidence. Aggrieved by the order, the accused persons of the case filed a criminal revision before this Court being Cr. Misc. No. 6316 of 2000 and this Court vide its order dated 17.1.2001 dismissed the petition of the accused but with the observation to conclude the trial within the time mentioned in the order of the trial Court. (one year) The period of one year is taken from 6.6.2000 to 6.6.2001, the prosecution evidence could not be completed and one year time expired on 3.7.2001 and as such, learned trial Court vide its order dated 4.7.2001 closed prosecution evidence and ordered for recording of statement under Section 313, Cr PC but till then only three witnesses were left to be examined and one witness was to be cross -examined by the prosecution after declaring hostile out of witnesses cited. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the trial Court as well as this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 6316 of 2000. the petitioner with utmost sincerity and dedication conducted the case and made all endeavors to conclude its evidence at the earliest but due to various reasons, the trial could not be completed within the time limit by the learned Court below as well as this Court during the period of one year, complainant was examined and discharged. Since 6.6.2000, twenty -five dates were given by the trial Court for hearing of the case and this is quite insufficient. Out of fifty -five dates six dates were exhausted for cross -examination of PW P. Sharma who was declared hostile. Other witnesses could not be examined because they could be summoned only after discharge of PW P. Sharma. Learned counsel tried to explain how within one year of time, prosecution could not examined rest of witnesses because for sometime, P.P. was on leave and on some dates witnesses remained present but could not be examined due to the reasons beyond the control of the prosecution. On 24.9.2002 prosecution filed a petition in trial Court to reopen the prosecution evidence in the light of recent ailing given by the Apex Court in P. Ram -chandra Rao V/s. State of Karnataka case reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 (2) East Cr C 310 (SC) but the learned trial Court vide its order dated 27.2.2003 refused the prayer of prosecution on the ground that since prosecution case was closed by the order of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court has no power to review or revise its own order. It was also pointed out that the present case relates to corruption and is a serious offence committed by a public servant. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon (2002) 4 SCC 578 wherein it has been held that Supreme Court cannot fix any time limit as bar beyond which criminal proceeding or trial cannot continue, thereby entitling accused to be acquitted on the ground of delay as prescription of such limited period would amount to judicial legislation which is not permissible. It was further pointed out that prayer has been made for one month 'stime only by which time, remaining witnesses will be examined and cross - examined.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that charges were framed on 1.5.1998 and a petition for closure of the case was filed on 6.5.2000 after lapse of two years to close the prosecution evidence but learned Court below while refusing the prayer of the defence -O.P. allowed one year time to the prosecution for completion of prosecution evidence and as against order dated 6.5.2000, Criminal Misc. No. 6316 of 2000 was filed and order was passed on 17.1.2001 by which, this Court dismissed the petition of O.Ps. but with an observation to conclude the trial within the time mentioned in the order of trial Court and the period of one year was taken from 6.6.2000 to 6.6.2001, but even then prosecution did not complete its case. Learned counsel further pointed out that only nine witnesses were cited in the charge sheet and it is a matter of surprise that in three years time, nine witnesses could not be examined and this shows sincerity on the part of the prosecution that it could not examine even nine witnesses in two yeafs time. Prosecution is now taking advantage of the case cited above that no time limit can be fixed beyond which trial or proceeding cannot continue. It was also submitted that ruling relied upon the Apex Court decided the matter on 16th April 2002 and this Court passed an order in Criminal Misc. No. 6316 of 2000 and allowed one year time and the time expired on 3.7.2001 and the case was closed after compliance of the order and, therefore, prosecution cannot be given benefit of this case laws.;