@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.N. Prasad, J.@mdashBoth 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 u/s 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 u/s 313, Cr PC.
3. 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) ECC 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.
4. 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.
5. The prosecution case was closed by the order dated 16.3.1999 and 16.11.2000 and against both the orders the petitioner (CBI) approached the High Court and both the orders were set aside by the High Court but there was a specific direction in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001, for adducing evidence and complete the same within four months. This case apparently is pending since 1989. There was a specific direction in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001, that the prosecution evidence shall be completed within four months from today, i.e.. 12.7.2001 but the prosecution failed to complete the evidence within stipulated period in spite of the fact that several adjournment was given to the prosecution for adducing evidence, it has not complied the direction of this Court which was passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001 by order dated 12.7.2001. There was clear observation in the said order that after expiry of four months, the prosecution evidence shall stand closed without any reference to any other development.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution (CBI) submitted that the prosecution may be given one more chance for adducing evidence. It is also pointed out that the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1903 of 2001 was received in the Court on 31.7.2001 and during 31.7.2001 to 22.11.2001, the Court remained closed for 49 days.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ accused contended before me that this case is pending for disposal since 1989 and the petitioner/accused is being harassed since long only because of non co-operation of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the case was closed against which the CBI filed Cr. Misc. case and there was specific direction in the Order dated 12.7.2001 for completing the prosecution evidence within four months even then the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence as per direction. It is further argued that the learned Court below has committed error in examining PW 6 after expiry of four months as per directions made by this Court and so the evidence of PW 6 should not be taken into account.
8. From going through the order impugned, i.e. 23.11.2001, it appears that PW 6 though was examined in chief but he was not cross examined by the defence as well as the prosecution case has already been closed and the accused was directed to remain physically present on the next date for examination u/s 313, Cr PC. In view of direction made by this Court, the prosecution miserably failed to complete the evidence within four months and there was a specific observation that at the expiry of four months the prosecution evidence shall stand closed without any reference to any other development. Thus, the Special Judge has rightly closed the case by order impugned and directed the accused for his examination u/s 313, Cr PC. Since prosecution has already been given sufficient opportunity for examination of the witnesses but failed to avail the opportunity, it can now not be allowed to act on its sweet will. The case cannot be kept pending at the mercy of the prosecution for indefinite period. Thus, I find that the Court below has rightly closed the case of the prosecution and in this score, there appears no illegality. PW 6 has not been cross- examined in the case and therefore his evidence cannot be taken into account.
9. In the result, there appears no reason for interference with the order impugned. Hence, both Cr. M.P. No. 236 of 2002 and Cr. M.P. No. 40 of 2002 are dismissed. The Court below shall proceed with the case expeditiously and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
