( 1 ) THESE three applications are filed challenging the action of the learned Special Judge, Rajkot when he entertained a private complaint and passed an order under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. by which he directed an officer not below the rank of the D. I. G. of C. B. I. , I. B. Branch, New Delhi to investigate the case and submit his report and chargesheet within one month from the date of the order i. e. 12-4-1993. With the consent of the law this they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE complaint came to be presented on 24-3-93 which happened to be a public holiday on account of Cheti Chand. Next day i. e. 25-3-93 was also a public holiday on account of Ramzan-Id. As the learned District Judge was not available, the matter came to be dealt with by the in charge District Judge and on that day, below the complaint, he passed the following order :"presented by the complainant and his advocate Shri Pandya. Received at 10. 50 a. m. on a public holiday. So it is kept for verification and necessary order by the District Judge on 26-3-93. "

( 3 ) ON the appointed day i. e. on 26-3-92, the learned Special Judge, passed an order as under : "the complainant is ordered to produce the documentary evidence before passing the order to justify the case. " then the order dated 12-4-93 came to be passed which reads as under :"heard the learned advocate Shri A. B. Pandya for the complainant. Perused the documentary evidence produced on record. Under the circumstances, the complaint is hereby ordered to tie sent to Central Bureau of Investigation, I. B. Branch, New Delhi for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the officer not below the rank of D. I. G. , is directed to investigate the case and submit his report and chargesheet within one month from today and also directed to submit his report every fortnightly before this court. Dictated and pronounced in open court on this 12th day of April, 1993 at Rajkot. ". Sd/ r. M. Parmar, special Judge, rajkot District, Rajkot. " from the aforesaid orders, an impression is likely to be created that on 12-4-93 when the order came to be passed below exh. 1, which was being treated as Cri. Misc. Application No. 299 of 1993, was passed on the basis of documentary evidence produced. On 26-3-93, production of documentary evidence was ordered.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the original record which was called for from the Trial Court reveals that except for the documents which were produced along with complaint exh. I, no other documents were produced, in spite of the said order. The documents so produced along with the complaint are listed at exh. 3 and they are 8 in number. Whereever there will be reference to the original documents they will be referred in original number as Mark 3/1 to 3/8 as the case may be.

( 5 ) IN the original records, it is to be found that on 26-3-93, possibly after the said order for production of documentary evidence, application exh. 4 for time was given on the ground that for obtaining Government documents, applications have been made and for important personal work, the complainant has gone out and, therefore, time may be granted. That application was granted and from the daily work-sheet of the court, it can be seen that the matter was adjourned to 29-3-1993. On that day, application exh. 5 came to be given which runs into 3 hand written pages and in this application it is stated that he is being pressurised and subjected to mental torture through the District Collector, Rajkot and therefore, for obtaining copies he has sought a long date in para 1. Likewise, in para 2 reference to the very Collector by name, the complainant says that the documents which are to be obtained from different courts will not be available immediately and therefore, long date be given. In para 3 in general terms the complainant has requested that he may be given date. Again in the last para, setting out reasons in his own way, the complainant has