JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble YAMIN, J. - This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur against his order dated 3. 4. 1999.

(2.) ACCUSED petitioner is facing trial before learned Special Judge under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act for an incident which happen- ed on 21. 7. 1989. Charge was framed and read over to the accused on 13. 8. 1993. No prosecution witness was examined till 3. 4. 1999. On that date four witnesses were examined. ACCUSED petitioner moved an application that in view of judgment of Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1), the prosecution evidence should be closed. The court examined four witnesses saying that since the Presiding Officer was on leave on 19. 12. 1998 and witnesses were present, therefore, the evidence should not be closed. Even on that date evidence was not closed though no witness was present.

(3.) THIS Court in Lissu Ram vs. Union of India (S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 282/1999, decided o n May 10, 1999) has held that Raj Deo Sharma's case (supra) would not be applicable to the cases in which an accused faces trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In "common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director vs. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1996 (4) SC page 701), decided on 1. 5. 1996. cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are excluded from the directions given in the said judgment. Raj Deo Sharma's case (supra) should be read together as one is in addition to the other but not a substitute. So even after Raj Deo Sharma's case (su- pra) the provision of closing the evidence which is due to systematic delay will not be applicable to the present case. Consequently, there is no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed. .