ORDER 1. The learned Attorney General submits that certain observations made by the High Court in the orders dated 5-3-1997 and 28-3-1997 do not appear to be called for in the facts of the case. He submits that the reference made to by the Director, CBI to the Attorney General was on account of the, difference of opinion between the DIG and the Joint Director of the CBI, the. Joint Director being of the view that a case for prosecution of the particular individual was made out and with whom the Director, CBI agreed. It was submitted that a reference to the Attorney General, as understood by the Director, CBI was required to be made in each case of difference of opinion even of this kind. In our opinion, this step taken by the Director, CBI was not warranted in view of the clear order made by this Court on 5-11-1996 which was later further explained in our order dated 24-1-1997. 2. It is reiterated that no reference is required to be made by the Director, C.BI to the Attorney General if he is of the opinion that an individual has to be prosecuted, irrespective of the difference, if any, amongst other officers of the CBI since in that case the CBI must act promptly to commence the prosecution. It is only if the Director, CBI takes the view that an individual is not to be prosecuted that he cannot close the case and in that event, he must refer the matter to the Attorney General for his opinion. In such a case, if the Attorney General is of the opinion that the individual must be prosecuted then the Director, CBI is to promptly act on that opinion and commence the prosecution. If, however, the Attorney General also concurs with the Director, CBI that the individual is not to be prosecuted, then the matter has to be reported to the Court for examination by the Court within the parameters of such a proceeding. 3. We do hope that at least now there would be no doubt entertained by anyone as to what our orders passed earlier mean. We would also like to add that expedition is of prime importance in a matter of this kind and we do hope that no further time would be lost in this needless exercise hereafter. 4. 3. We do hope that at least now there would be no doubt entertained by anyone as to what our orders passed earlier mean. We would also like to add that expedition is of prime importance in a matter of this kind and we do hope that no further time would be lost in this needless exercise hereafter. 4. The learned Attorney General submits that a notice to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated, has been issued by the High Court. He submits that there is no case of any wilful disobedience of the order of any court. It is sufficient for us to observe that it is open to the notice to make this submission before the High Court in response to the show-cause notice. We have no doubt the High Court would consider the same appropriately so that there is no occasion for the notice to make any grievance in that behalf as a result of the order made by the High Court. 5. The special leave petitions and IAs are disposed of accordingly.