JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---This writ petition is filed by Public Prosecutor on behalf of State of Maharashtra, challenging the order passed by Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 21 of 1991 dated 26th August, 1991, whereby the application filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, M.S. Bombay and Investigating Officer in A.C.B. C.R. No. 25 of 1990 has been rejected by the Court below. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police had in that application requested permission of the Court that the sealed packet containing Microcassette bearing Sr. No. 6121848 of Sony make attached under a formal post trap panchanama in A.C.B. C.R. No. 25 of 1990 be ordered to be taken in the custody of the Court and the Registrar, Special Court, Bombay be directed to keep the said sealed packet containing the Micro cassette in safe-custody. The A.C.P. has stated in the application that during the course of investigation of A.C.B. C.R. No. 25 of 1990 under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused S.P. Munje, a public servant, complainant was provided with a blank Micro cassette of Sony make, bearing Serial No. 6121848 and a tape recorder under a formal Pre-trap panchanama dated 26-9-1990 for recording complainant's conversation with the said public servant at the time of the transaction. Conversation was recorded in the tape during the course of post trap panchanama dated 26th/27th September, 1990, before the panch witness. The complainant had produced the said Micro cassette and the Tape recorder to the police in the presence of the panch witnesses. Assistant Commissioner of Police has stated that there was inadvertent omission on the part of the Investigation Agency that before the copies of all the documents and papers of the case is handed over to the accused as envisaged under section 173 of Cr. P.C., copies of the recorded conversation could not be done and therefore, on 1st day of appearance of the accused, in order to cure this defect, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed this application before the Court to take copies of recorded conversation for furnishing the same to the accused. Tape has been put in sealed cover and produced before the Court along with the charge-sheet and other documents. Tape has been put in sealed cover and produced before the Court along with the charge-sheet and other documents. It was necessary to give copy of the contents recorded in the tape recorder to the accused in compliance of section 173 of Cr. P.C. The lower Court however, rejected the application. Though all the objections have been in detail dealt with by the Magistrate and found to be unsustainable, still the prayer made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police has been rejected by the Court. It is in this circumstances, that the Public Prosecutor has filed this petition before this Court. 3.I heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Kejriwal. None had appeared for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Kejriwal has vehemently argued that it was on account of bona fide mistake that the conversation contained in the tape recorder between the complainant and the accused was not contemporaneously taken at the time of preparing post trap panchanama so as to enable the prosecutor to serve the copy of the contents of the tape recorder to the accused. So long as it does not cause any prejudice to the accused and as request was made on the first day of appearance of the accused, Mrs. Usha Kejriwal submits that the learned Special Judge has committed serious error in turning down the request made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. I find that there is substance in the contention of the Prosecutor particularly, when the lower Court has rejected all the objections raised by the accused. It is profitable to extract observations of the learned Special Judge in paragraph 21 of the order as follows : "It is true that there is some delay on the part of the prosecution but the delay by itself will not debar the prosecution from producing a document namely the concerned cassette. Only thing to be taken care of is that the transcription of the concerned cassette will have to be given to the accused to prepare himself at the time of enquiry/trial. Hence, the grievance of the accused cannot be accepted holding that the production of the concerned cassette cannot be allowed." 4.Having observed this, the lower Court has rejected by saying in paragraph No. 25 as follows : "To allow the prosecution first to produce the cassette tape and then to arrange for its transcription will be permitting something to be done against the rules. Such approach cannot be allowed. Rule 7 also makes it clear that notice is to be given to the other side "of the production of the tape together with the transcript". Thus, rule also stress on the production of the cassette and the transcription together. I am well aware that Rule 16 lays down that the rules are to be followed "as far as possible" subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure. But to my mind the words "as far as possible" cannot be interpreted as "not in compliance" or on "in contravention thereof". No provision of Evidence Act or Criminal Procedure Code is brought to my notice which will support the course adopted by the prosecution in producing the cassette without complying with the rules. There is no escape to the prosecution and it is bound to comply with the rules." 5.It appears that the lower Court was in confused state of mind. The Supreme Court in (Narayan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 737 has held that the Prosecutor can give any Additional Report even after the copy of the documents are handed over even after the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court. The only criteria stipulated by the Supreme Court is that such piecemeal production of document to the accused as far as possible should be curtailed and one should not cause any prejudice to the accused in meeting the prosecution allegations. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in various subsequent decisions also. If that is the only principle to be borne in mind by the trial Court, I fail to understand why the Special Judge has refused the request of Assistant Commissioner of Police. By refusing the permission, the trial Court has stultified the trial of the accused for the long lapse of 9 years. The matter is pending here for last 9 years and because of the attitude of the trial Court, this unnecessary delay was caused which had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application by taking necessary safeguards that interest of accused should not be jeopardised. In view of this, I find that the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the request made by learned A.P.P. has to be allowed. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application by taking necessary safeguards that interest of accused should not be jeopardised. In view of this, I find that the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the request made by learned A.P.P. has to be allowed. 6.In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order of the trial Court impugned here is set aside. 7.The trial Court is directed to make necessary arrangements to allow the prosecution to take charge of the said cassette and then appoint a date when the packet can be unsealed and transcription of conversation contained in the tape in the presence of accused or his Counsel can be made and copies of the same can be given to the accused. 8.Since this matter is pending since the year 1991, the Special Judge should take immediate steps to carry out this order and conclude the trial as early as possible at any date not later than six months from the date of receipt of this writ. Rule made absolute in above terms. Interim order stands vacated, No orders as to costs. Petition allowed. *****