^"&^I^^E?i tffiT$'KP'^5stK§rSS?'Srff'iPt§^liR* NTMEW©H(£©IWB(3RCI-IH%TIS&AfSi^ATBILASPUR Cf-Mf.^o.iy-\<\ /2bio PEITTTONER vKeepoik Tyagi S/o Raghuyansh Tyagi aged ahqut 56 year R/o Sabdj Sunder NggarRaipur'CC.G). yA-w.*WS**a^B^-?' • '^'^•^^s^^VERSUS L.-"' '-'*",'~uu-- • 0<»*-""" . .u""^' RESPON&ENTS State of Chhattisgarh/ Through: State Economic Offerices Bureau.Raipur. < GRIMINALMISCELLANEOUSPETITOINUNbER SECtEQN 482 ORTMECODEOFCRIAAINALPROGPhLJRF ^ le Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker DeepaK Tyagi State of Chhattisaarh Shri Arvjnd Dubey, counsel for the petltioner. Shri VaibhavA. Goverdhan, PL forthe respondent/State. !M(NAL MiSCELLANEOUS PETiTI !CTI rsF Ti E CODE OF CRSMiNAL ;D (03.05.2011) Present petition filed under Section 482 of Code ofCriminai Procedure is for quashment of crimlnai proceedings pendinc before Special Judge, Raipurjn Speciai Case No.12/1999, forthe offence under Sections 13(1)(e) and 1.3(2) of Prevention of .Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Contention of Shri Ar/ind Dubev, learned counsei for the petitioner is that challan was fiied on 29.07.1999 and charges were framed on 03.03.2000, but till date, the triaf has not been concluded. He submits that out of 33 'witnesses cited by the prosecution, on!y lowitnesses have-been examined tiil date and 6n" account of inordinate de!ay on the part of the pro^ecution In concludlng the trial, the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. He has ptaced strong reiiance in the matter of Vs. of Bihar reported in 3 3. On the other hand, opposlng the prayer, it has been arguee afi Shn Vajbhav Goverdhan: iearned counsei for the State that 3 ..^SC'^1\ -t' •%„., •v\.-syi -3- present is a case, where a!l efforts have been made by the prosecution as we!! as the Court below to record the evidence of the remalning witnesses, but as the witnesses are frorn dl'fferent States, they are not turning up before the tria! Court, the triai co'Ji'd not be concluded. 4. Heard iearned counsel for the 'parties. Perused the documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, It would be appropriate for this Court to direct {he tria! Court to conclude the trial as eariy as possibie, preferably within six months from the next date of nearinfl of the case. The trial Court will take ati possible steps to conclude the trial v/ithin the time frame. Needless to say t'nat the petitioner and the Special ProsecutQr v/ou!d coepState in th.e trial. 6. VVith the above observatlon, the present getition is disDosed of. Bini Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge