CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. DAHYABHAI DANABHAI DABHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondent-original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short `the Code') for challenging an order dated 30th April, 1999, recorded by the learned Special Judge i.e. the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No.74/89. It seems that the said case was instituted against the accused who is the contesting respondent in this revision application for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B, 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The special case was registered in 1989 and till 1998 the matter had not proceeded further and evidence was not recorded. Therefore, the accused had submitted application at Exh.39 on 30.11.98 stating that since 1991 no evidence has been recorded and witnesses have not been kept present, the Court should consider the decision of Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in JT 1998 (7) SC 1 and close the evidence. The trial court heard the parties and found that despite the passage of seven years, witnesses were not kept present and at times even the learned Special Public Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution did not remain present. The trial court followed the decision of the case of Raj Deo Sharma and allowed the application Exh.39 and closed the evidence of the prosecution in the said case.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the petitioner CBI has preferred this revision application before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

(3.) In the present revision application, the CBI has contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the learned Judge has overlooked the judgment reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 195, 1998 Cr.L.J. 2380. That the judgment relied upon by the trial court was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the judgment of Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar can not be read in isolation. That the trial court has failed to appreciate that the case of Husainara Khatoon's case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That on the whole the order of the trial court closing the evidence of the CBI is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed that the present revision application be allowed and the impugned order dated 30th April, 1999, recorded by the learned trial Judge below application Exh.39 in Special Case No.74/89 may be set aside.