STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVEENSINH BHARATSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revision applications are seeking to challenge the same interlocutory order dated 01.04.1998 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.5 of 1992. The impugned order was made below application Exh.157 of learned Special Prosecutor to arraign certain witnesses as accused persons and that application was rejected by the impugned order, expressly on the basis that it was premature at the stage at which it was made.

(2.) HAVING regard to the passage of time since the alleged offences were committed and the trial had commenced and during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it was jointly submitted by learned counsel appearing on both sides, who were present, as also learned A.P.P. that without entering into the merits of the order and referring to the factual background, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the order at this stage with the direction that the original application Exh.157 may be kept pending for decision at the end of the trial and till all the evidences was adduced in the trial court. It was, however, clarified that it would be the discretion and privilege of learned Special Prosecutor to decide as to which witness should be examined or dropped in the trial court.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , by consent and joint request of the learned counsel as well as learned A.P.P., the impugned order is set aside with the direction that the application Exh.157 shall be heard and decided after recording of the evidence and at the time of delivering the judgment in Sessions Case No.5 of 1992. In view of the delay caused in the conclusion of the trial, the trial shall now be expeditiously conducted and concluded preferably within a period of three months. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.