( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Application has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondents-original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short `the Code) for challenging an order dated 30th April, 1999, recorded by the learned Special Judge i. e. the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 30/85. It seems that the said case was instituted against the accused who are the contesting respondents in this revision application for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The special case was registered in 1985 and till 1998 the matter had not proceeded further and evidence was not recorded. Therefore, the accused had submitted application at Exh. 76 on 2. 12. 1998 stating that since 1988 no evidence has been recorded and witnesses have not been kept present, the Court should consider the decision of Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in JT 1998 (7) SC 1 and close the evidence. The trial court heard the parties and found that despite the passage of seven years, witnesses were not kept present and at times even the learned Special Public Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution did not remain present. The trial court followed the decision of the case of Raj Deo Sharma and allowed the application Exh. 76 and closed the evidence of the prosecution in the said case.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the petitioner CBI has preferred this revision application before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

( 3 ) IN the present revision application, the CBI has contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. That the learned Judge has overlooked the judgment reported in 1998 Cri. L. J. 195, 1998 Cr. L. J. 2380. That the judgment relied upon by the trial court was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the judgment of Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar can not be read in isolation. That the trial court has failed to appreciate that the case of Husainara Khatoons case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That on the whole the order of the trial court closing the evidence of the CBI is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed that the present revision application be allowed and the impugned order dated 30th April, 1999, recorded by the learned trial Judge below application Exh. 76 in Special Case No. 30/85 may be set aside.

( 4 ) ON receipt of the revision application, Rule was issued, and in pursuance of the service of notice of rule, Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents. On the other hand, Mr. S. J. Dave, learned APP has appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat. During the course of arguments, Mr. Lakhani, learned advocate for the original accused has strongly objected to the grant of present revision application, whereas Mr. S. J. Dave, learned Addl. P. P. has supported the contention raised by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel in favour of the grant of the present revision application.

( 5 ) NOW, by and large, the facts cannot be disputed. The chargesheet was filed and the special case was registered in 1985 and it seems that though the charge was framed on 25. 11. 1988, evidence was not recorded till 1998. By and large, it appears that, on some occasions the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI before the trial court did not remain present and witnesses were not kept present. It also seems that the CBI does not appear to have applied for issue of witness summons. These are the hard facts which cannot be disputed.

( 6 ) THE learned Central Government Standing Counsel has argued the matter at length s