[1] SB CRIM MISC PET 595/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 595/2009 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN PAREEK & ORS. Date: 15/12/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. R.P. Singh, Addl. Advocate General for State. Mr. S.S. Hora, ] Mr. Ravi Yadav, ] Mr. Nitin Jain and ] Mr. Sumit Bishnoi, ] Advocates for the respondents. **** The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 43/1998(71/1998), whereby the Court below refused to record the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 and her father PW12 despite of their presence in the Court. 2. It is submitted that the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application before the trial Court stating therein that prosecutrix PW1 Pragati Vyas and her father PW12 Ved Vyas are present in the Court whose statements are required to be recorded after supplementary challan. The said application was opposed by the Counsel appearing for the accused-respondents. [2] SB CRIM MISC PET 595/2009 3. The trial Court after hearing rival submissions of both sides on the application submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor, refused to record the evidence of these two witnesses and rejected the application vide its order impugned dated 30.01.2009 observing that the Court has not summoned the witnesses PW1 Pragati Vyas and her father PW12 Ved Vyas but they have been produced by the Special Public Prosecutor without seeking prior permission of the Court and the Court has already closed the prosecution evidence. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 30.01.2009, the petitioner had preferred a criminal revision before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 264/2009- State of Rajasthan Vs. Bharat Bhushan Pareek & Others, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2009 with liberty to file fresh petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the connected misc. petition i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 599/2009, this Court while dismissing the said misc. petition today, has observed that the Special Public Prosecutor is the person responsible for delay in progress of the trial and the prosecution utterly failed to produce [3] SB CRIM MISC PET 595/2009 the witnesses before the Court despite of several opportunities given to them, on account of which the trial is still pending since more than a decade. 6. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the Court below, it appears that ample opportunities were provided to the prosecution to produce the witnesses but the same have not been availed by the prosecution, on the contrary, the Special Public Prosecutor remained absent on several occasions and appears to be not interested in completion of the trial and in these circumstances, the Court below had no option but to close the prosecution evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of this Court, there is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Court below and the same requires no interference by this Court while exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [4] SB CRIM MISC PET 595/2009 9. The interim order dated 06.05.2009 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/