STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A M VEDACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The prosecution proceedings against the respondent were quashed by the High Court mainly on the ground of the decision of this court in 1998 (7) SCC 507. Instead of quashing the proceedings the High Court could have directed the trial Court to close the evidence thus far adduced against him and to go to the further steps in the matter. Instead of doing that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had de-linked the respondent from the array of a number of other accused and quashed the case in respect of him alone.

(2.) Whatever be the merit of the contentions based on the decision of this Court in rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar learned counsel for the State invited our attention to the modification made by this Court in regard to the' same decision by a subsequently rendered decision which is reported in Rajdeo sharma (11) v, State of Bihar. By the modified order prosecution can legitimately claim a period of one more year for completing the prosecution evidence in respect of the cases referred to therein. By the impugned order the said benefit had been denied to the prosecution.

(3.) Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel while opposing this prayer pointed out that the State took more than a year to reach the trial Court In challenge of the impugned order. We have not found any delay for the state to file this special leave petition challenging the impugned order. As the application for copy of the order was filed right in time it was not on account of any laches on the part of the State that the certified copy was supplied to the State late.