ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. From the statement made in the petition on behalf of the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties the following undisputed facts emerge. 3. The opposite party Sudama Prasad alongwith one Dr. Prem Sagar Singh are facing trial before the Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10 (A)/90 (D) for allegedly committing the offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. It appears that the charges were framed against the accused persons on 27.04.1995 and the case of the prosecution was closed on 28.07.2000 and then the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr PC were recorded on 19.08.2000. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2000 passed by the trial Court closing the prosecution evidence before this Court in Criminal Misc. No 9079/2000 which was disposed of by the order dated 11.07.2001 with the following orders:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10 (A)/90 (D) and directed that the entire prosecution evidence in this case shall be tendered by the prosecution in the Court below within four months from today. At the end of four months from today, the prosecution evidence shall stand closed. The prosecution may request the learned Court below to fix early dates in the case so as to enable it to conclude the entire prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period. No adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties in the case". 6. Thereafter, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the trial Court to summon four witnesses namely, K.P. Roy, C.S. Bhengra, Garbali Mian and Kamla Prasad but even after service of summons the aforesaid witnesses did not appear, then bailable warrant of arrest was issued against them. It further appears that pursuant to the warrant of arrest the witness Garbali Mian appeared in the Court on 10.01.2002 but due to paucity of times his evidence was not recorded. It further appears that pursuant to the warrant of arrest the witness Garbali Mian appeared in the Court on 10.01.2002 but due to paucity of times his evidence was not recorded. What it appears that the said Garbali Mian was the complainant in the said case and he was examined partly on 19.11.1998 itself and for his further evidence, the case was being adjourned. 7. As noticed above the witness Garbali Mian was present in the Court on 10.01.2002 but without examining him the case was adjourned to 29.01.2002 and then a petition was filed on behalf of the defence for closure of the prosecution case. The prosecution also filed a petition under Section 311 of the Cr PC for examination of some more witnesses. 8. It appears that by the impugned order dated 29.4.2002, the trial Court rejected the petition under Section 311, Cr PC filed on behalf of the prosecution and after closure of the prosecution case the case was fixed for recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr PC. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case is fully covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2002 (2) JCR 273 (SC) : 2002 (2) JCJR 245 (SC) : 2002 (2) East Cr C 310 (SC) : 2002 (4) SCC 578 overruling the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Rajdeo Sharmas case, wherein it has been held that the prescription of limitation period for conclusion of the trial would amount to judicial legislation, which is not permissible under the law. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of State through Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad v. Shri Chandraket Naryan Singh, reported in 2004 (1) JCJR 277 (Jhr) : 2004 (2) JLJR 223 in which in the similar circumstances as in the present case after relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao (supra) the prosecution was allowed to examine further evidence. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party after relying on an un- reported order of this Court passed in Cr. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party after relying on an un- reported order of this Court passed in Cr. M.P. No. 375 of 2003 in the case of State through the Superintendent of Police, Sri Anil Garg, S.P.E./CBI, Dhanbad v. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, disposed of on 19.07.2004, has submitted that in the similar circumstances this Court has declined to interfere with the order of the closure of the prosecution and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rival contention of the parties, it appears that in the case of State through the Superintendent of Police Sri Anil Garg S.P.E./CBI, Dhanbad v. Mithilesh Kumar Singh passed in Cr. M.P. No. 375/2003, which was disposed of on 19.07.2004 the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao was not brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, in view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite party cannot be accepted. 13. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao (supra), the impugned order rejecting the petition of the prosecution filed under Section 311 of the Cr PC on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution was closed pursuant to the order of the High Court where time frame was fixed to conclude the trial, cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly, this application is being disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2002, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10 (A)/90(D) with direction to the learned trial Court to consider the application under Section 311 of the Cr PC filed by the prosecution in its right perspective and to take a decision in accordance with law arid if it considers that the examination of any further witness/witnesses on behalf of the prosecution would be necessary for the just decision of the case, then it may allow the prosecution to examine any further witness/witnesses.