HARIHAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These two matters have been referred by the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench by passing the following order on 18-2-2000: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19-1-2000 passed by the learned special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, in Case No. RC 18(A)/93 (R), whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner to close the prosecution evidence in view of the judgment, reported in Rajdeo Shanna v. State of Bihar, was rejected and the learned Court below allowed one year further time to the prosecution to examine its remaining witnesses in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court in Rajdeo ShannaTs case (supra). The learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer and submitted that then; is no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned so far the outer limit is concerned, as has been held in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India3. In my humble view the decision will have far reaching the consequences in several cases of CBI which are pending for evidence and, therefore, I feel that this matter should be heard by a Division Bench. As such, this case is referred to Division Bench for hearing.

(2.) Cr. Misc. No. 1185/2000(R), arises out of Cr. Case No. RC 18(A)/93(R), registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of a written complaint made to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi on 25-9-1995. In that- case after investigation CBI submitted charge-sheet on 31- 12-1993 against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2), read with Section 13(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and cognizance was taken on 22-2-1995. On 8-2-1995 the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(i)(e) of the P.C. Act.

(3.) Cr. Misc. No. 1303/2000(R), arises out of RC 15(A)/88(D) registered under Section 161, IPC read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In that case after investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 23-8-1995 and charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 161, IPC and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.