JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions are being decided by this common order since both the petitions have been preferred against the same impugned-order dated 31.3.1999 which is common in Sessions Case No. 44/98. For the sake of convenience, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 312/1999 (Murli Sharma v. State of Rajasthan) be treated as the main petition. 2. Petitioner-Murli Sharma has come up before this Court by way of instant revision petition against the impugned-order dated 31.3.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 44/98 (State v. Mohd. Rafiq Rijvi) whereby the learned trial Court had closed the evidence of the petitioner. The statement in examination-in-chief of the petitioner has been recorded while he was not given the opportunity of cross examining the accused-respondent. 3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not open to the trial Court to have abruptly closed the evidence of the petitioner without permitting him to cross-examine accused-Mohd. Rafiq Rijvi (the petitioner in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 277/99). 4. Mrs. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner (in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 277/99) has contended that this is a case of protracted trial and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for closure of prosecution evidence without recording any cogent finding at issue. She further states that the petitioner has moved the application before the trial Court since the proceedings had commenced before the trial Court against the accused pursuant to the charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The charge-sheet was filed on 27.6.1991. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar : AIR 1998 SC 3281 , wherein the Apex Court held that in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, the evidence should have been closed in all probability within a period of two years from the date of filing of charge-sheet. She further states that the right of the petitioner of speedy trial has been violated. 5. She further states that the right of the petitioner of speedy trial has been violated. 5. Be that as it may, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the finding which has been recorded by the trial Court, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served if definite time limit is fixed for the purpose of recording of the evidence on behalf of the complainant-petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 312/99 as well as the evidence to be led by the accused-petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 277/99 before the trial Court. 6. I have been informed by Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner that out of 10 witnesses, 5 witnesses namely, Dr. O.P Verma, Jaikumar, Pankaj Gupta, Kumbharam and Kuldip have to be examined on 6.5.1999. 7. The trial Court is directed to complete the evidence of all the witnesses as per the list submitted by the prosecution within a period of eight weeks w.e.f. 6.5.1999. No further extension shall be permitted in this regard. Petitioner-Murli Sharma is directed to appear before the trial Court on 6.5.1999. These directions are given keeping in view the ratio of decision of Apex Court in the matter of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (supra) as referred to above. 8. With the above observations, both the revision petitions are disposed of.Revision Disposed of As Above. *******