ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1.This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 16-8-2002 passed by the Special Judge CBI, Dhanabad in R. C. Case No. 7(A)/ 94(D) whereby he has closed the evidence of the prosecution and fixed the case for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C.
2. It appears that a criminal case was instituted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges were framed on 30-6-1994. On 11-5-2000 prosecution evidence was closed following the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajdeo Sharma. The prosecution challenged the said order of closure before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6499/2000 R and this Court, by order dated 28-5-2001 allowed one last indulgence to the prosecution to examine the remaining witnesses within one year from the date of the order. The order of this Court was received by the trial Court on 1-8-2001 and, accordingly, a date was fixed i.e. 10-8-2001. On 20-8-2001 the Special P. P. prayed to summon three prosecution witnesses. On 4-9-2001 two witnesses were in attendance but their evidence could not be recorded because the presiding Officer was on casual leave. On the next date i.e. on 25-9-2001 and on 10-10-2001 prosecution witnesses were examined and cross examined. On 18-10-2001 since the Presiding Officer was busy in hearing other case, the evidence could not be recorded. On the subsequent dates the witnesses were cross examined. On 22-1-2002 summons were issued and on 5-2-2002, the witnesses were present but could not be examined due to paucity of time. On 26-2-2002 no witness was present as the Court was not available. On 2-7-2002 prosecution witnesses were further cross examined and on 24-7-2002 another prosecution witness, R.S. Ram was examined and another witness Mr. T.J. Ghosh was summoned. On 16-8-2002 Mr. T.J. Ghosh was present but the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence in terms of the direction given in the order dated 28-5-2001.
3. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it does not appear that the prosecution witnesses were not diligent in prosecuting the case, rather, the prosecution produced witnesses almost on all the dates fixed and the witnesses were examined and cross examined. In my opinion, therefore, merely be cause a time limit was fixed, the prosecution evidence could not have been closed. In the case of R. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) (2) Eastern Criminal Cases, 310 (SC) (2002 Cri LJ 2547), their lordships held that the Court should not fix a period limit beyond which the trial of the criminal case or criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting of discharging the accused. The Court below, therefore, was not justified in closing the prosecution evidence by passing the impugned order.
4. For the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 16-8-2002 is quashed. The trial Court is directed to allow the prosecution to examine the witnesses at the earliest and, thereafter, the Court shall proceed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.