BHAGWATIPRASAD DOLATRAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the petitioners pray for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 4-1-1999 at Annexure-D passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 15 of 1990 under which an application of the petitioners was dismissed by the said Court. The petitioners contended in the said application that the F.I.R. against the petitioners was filed on 21-10-1988. That the petitioners were arrested and charge-sheeted on 11-4-1990. That the charge was framed against the petitioners on 8-3-1994. That thereafter, several adjournments have been granted and several dates have been fixed and yet, proceedings and evidence did not start. That three orders were passed after framing of charge without any evidence and, therefore, the petitioners contended before the Trial Court that the evidence may be closed in the said matter in terms of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma V/s. The State of Bihar, 1998 7 JT 1. The matter was heard at length and the learned Special Judge has considered the arguments of the rival parties and found that this was not a case in which the evidence can be closed. Therefore, the learned Special Judge had dismissed the said application of the petitioners on 4-1-1999. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, the petitioners have preferred this petition before this Court challenging the said judgment and order of the learned Special Judge with a prayer to close the evidence in the said matter.

(2.) The petitioners above named have been facing the aforesaid prosecution along with other accused persons for offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts are not very much in dispute. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued at length that the matter requires consideration and learned Special Judge has not properly considered the aforesaid decision of Raj Deo Sharma and prays that the present petition be allowed and Court should direct the closure of the evidence in the aforesaid matter.

(3.) On receiving the petition, notice was issued and after hearing the other side, interim relief was granted by this Court on 4-8-1999 for staying further prosecution of the said Special Case No. 15 of 1990 pending against the petitioners. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K. G. Sheth, learned APP for State and have perused the papers.