ORDER D.N. Prasad, J. 1. By the Court.--This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17.1.2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge closed the prosecution case in connection with RC. case No. 1 (A)/89D. 2. The prosecution case in brief as stated that the accused while working in different capacities in BCCL during the period has amassed huge assets, both moveable and immoveable by illegal and questionable means in his own name, in the name of his dependents and in benami. It was further stated he earned a total amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- from all sources like salary and Bank interest etc. and contrary to the known source of income. Besides, he possessed assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 7,54,800/- and accordingly FIR was registered for the offence under Section 13(2), read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge was framed in this case as back as on 25.3.1998 and in pursuance of framing of charge out of 47 witnesses named in the case, 13 witnesses have already been examined and the petitioner is also ready to examine the rest of the witnesses and he prayed for giving one more opportunity to examine the remaining witnesses within a time frame. It is further submitted that the Court below committed error in closing the case relying on Rajdeo Sharmas case which has already been held by the Apex Court not being a good law. 4. On the other hand, the accused/opposite party also filed a counter affidavit claiming therein that the case is pending since 1989 and even after framing of charge in the year 1998 only 13 witnesses have been examined and several opportunity was given to the prosecution for producing the witnesses and even after giving several adjournments and extension of time by the Court below, prosecution/petitioner could not examined the witnesses and completed the evidences and as such the accused has been lingering and being harassed in the case since long for his no fault on his part. 5. 5. The learned senior counsel for the opposite party/accused contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order for closing the case as after framing of charge the prosecution failed to produce the rest of the witnesses for examination even giving much adjournments and extension of time. The speedy disposal of the case is the fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. From going through the impugned order, it appears that the Special Judge relying on the case of Rajdeo Sharmas [1999 (2) East Cr C 274 (SC)] closed the prosecution case. It is true that this case is pending since long and the charge has already been framed as back as in the year 1998 and only 13 witnesses have yet been examined by the prosecution. However, in the interest of justice, prosecution may be given one more chance for examining the rest of the witnesses within time frame. 7. Thus, while allowing this petition, the prosecution/petitioner is directed to produce the rest of the witnesses and examined them within a period of six months positively and the Special Judge shall examine those witnesses on the day to day basis so that the case may be concluded within the time frame. However, if the Court below find any laches on the part of the prosecution in delaying the disposal of the case or deliberate intention on the part of the prosecution in not producing the witnesses, the Special Judge will be at liberty to close the case and dispose of the matter after hearing both sides, in accordance with law. 8. With this observation, this application is disposed of. The order impugned, i.e. 17.1.2002 is, hereby, quashed.