1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2980 OF 2009 Rahul Arun Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Central Bureau of Investi- gation (CBI) ACB & Ors. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri D.A. Nalawade for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 08, 2009 P.C: 1. None appears for the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings in Special Case No. 125 of 2004 pending before the Court of Special Judge for CBI, Greater Mumbai on the ground of delay. In response to the notice issued, the CBI, which is prosecuting the matter, has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. They have stated that as regards the original documents, they could not be produced before the Special Court and the trial was 2 required to be adjourned. It is the case of the respondents that the original documents relating to the case were retained by the earlier investigating officer, who, on opting for voluntary retirement, failed to handover the documents and, therefore, the records were required to be collected from him and now the documents are filed in the Court on 3-12-2009. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the CBI assures the Court that the CBI would diligently prosecute the case, without seeking any adjournment, subject to exception for good and sufficient reasons. We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI. 3. Therefore, we are not inclined to quash the proceedings merely on the ground of delay which has been explained by the CBI as having been caused due to retirement of the concerned investigating officer. The least expected of the CBI is to issue a circular to all its officers that on retirement they should, while handing over the charge, handover all the case papers in their custody. We fail to understand why the CBI has not initiated any departmental inquiry against the said officer 3 for the lapse on his part, which is serious in nature. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)