ORDER 1. THE CHALLENGE IN THIS APPEAL IS TO AN ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES). 2. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS A NOTIFIED PARTY UNDER THAT ACT. ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAD MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED ON 1-12-1999 FROM WHICH THE COURT DEDUCED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 3,11,75,000 HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD., RESPONDENT 2 HEREIN, WHO WAS ALSO A NOTIFIED PARTY. THE COURT WENT ON TO CONSIDER A SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMENT TO SOME THIRD PARTIES WHO WERE THE ASSOCIATES AND SISTER CONCERNS OF RESPONDENT 2. HOWEVER, THE COURT REJECTED THE SUBMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED EITHER TO SHOW SUCH PAYMENTS MADE OR TO SHOW THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT AT THE COMMAND OR AT THE BEHEST OF RESPONDENT 2. THE COURT ALSO REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN MERELY CREDITED BY AN ENTRY BY RESPONDENT 2 AS IF THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT BUT THESE CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES HAD BEEN MADE IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ENTRIES HAD BEEN MADE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT THE APPELLANT, WHO WAS APPEARING IN PERSON BEFORE THE COURT, HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE COURT THAT HE WAS REGULARLY OPERATING THE ACCOUNT, THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT CREDIBLE. IT FOUND THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS 3,11,75,000 TO RESPONDENT 2. ACCORDINGLY, A DECREE WAS PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR A SUM OF RS 3,11,75,000 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT 15% PER ANNUM FROM 5-8-1992 TILL THE REALISATION OF THE SUM. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY AFFIDAVIT ON WHICH THE COURT HAD RELIED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SPECIAL COURT EARLIER WHEN THE COURT HAD DIRECTED THAT THE ORIGINAL CASH BOOK, GENERAL LEDGER AND BANK STATEMENTS OF RESPONDENT 2 SHOULD BE PRODUCED. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY AFFIDAVIT ON WHICH THE COURT HAD RELIED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SPECIAL COURT EARLIER WHEN THE COURT HAD DIRECTED THAT THE ORIGINAL CASH BOOK, GENERAL LEDGER AND BANK STATEMENTS OF RESPONDENT 2 SHOULD BE PRODUCED. AS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE BOOKS WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF CM, TIME WAS GRANTED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINALS. THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED. CM WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT THE ORIGINALS WITH THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY ATTACHED TO THE COURT AND THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN LIBERTY TO INSPECT THE DOCUMENTS SO DEPOSITED. THIS ORDER WHICH WAS PASSED ON 10-3-2003 HAD NOT IN FACT BEEN COMPLIED .WITH. NO SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED NOR DID CBI FILE THE ORIGINALS WITH THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY. 4. ADDITIONALLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE COURT HAD INITIALLY PROCEEDED ACCORDING TO THE STAGES ENVISAGED IN REGULATIONS 14 AND 16 AND IN PARTICULAR REGULATION 19 OF THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE OF CIVIL CASES UNDER SECTION 9-A(4) OF THE ACT. THESE REGULATIONS READ AS UNDER: "16. IN THE EVENT OF DOCUMENTS BEING IN THE POSSESSION OF SOME THIRD PARTY INCLUDING THE CUSTODIAN OR CBI OR THE IT DEPARTMENT, THE PARTY RELYING ON THEM SHOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE FILING OF THE PLEADING MAKE A WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS IN COURT AND FOR ENABLING INSPECTION TO BE GIVEN THEREOF. ON SUCH APPLICATIONS, APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR INSPECTION BY ALL PARTIES WILL BE PASSED. THE FACT OF THE DOCUMENTS BEING IN POSSESSION OF THE CUSTODIAN AND/OR CM AND/OR THE IT DEPARTMENT WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES EXCUSE A PARTY FROM FILING PLEADINGS, INCLUDING THE AFFIDAVIT WITH LIST OF DOCUMENTS, WITHIN THE TIME AFORESAID. 17. AFTER AN APPEARANCE HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF A COUNTER-PARTY AND/OR AT ANY STAGE PRIOR TO THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THE PARTIES SHALL CALL UPON ALL COUNTER-PARTIES (EXCEPT THE CUSTODIAN) TO ADMIT FACTS AND DOCUMENTS AND/OR TO DISCLOSE AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. IN THIS BEHALF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDERS 11 AND 12 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHALL BE APPLICABLE: 18. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR FIRST HEARING THE COURT SHALL (AFTER FRAMING ISSUES IN SUITS) ASCERTAIN FROM EACH PARTY AND/OR HIS ADVOCATE WHAT FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ARE ADMITTED EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION. IN THIS BEHALF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDERS 11 AND 12 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHALL BE APPLICABLE: 18. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR FIRST HEARING THE COURT SHALL (AFTER FRAMING ISSUES IN SUITS) ASCERTAIN FROM EACH PARTY AND/OR HIS ADVOCATE WHAT FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ARE ADMITTED EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION. THE COURT SHALL THEN RECORD THE ADMISSION OF FACT OR LEGAL POSITION AND TAKE ON RECORD ALL ADMITTED DOCUMENTS. THE COURT SHALL THEN, EITHER ON THE SAME DAY OR ON ANY OTHER ADJOURNED DATE, PROCEED TO TRY THE SUIT/PETITION ON THE DISPUTED POINTS. 19. ALL EXAMINATIONS-IN-CHIEF, IN MATTERS WHERE ORAL EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, SHALL BE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE. SUCH AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE TO BE SUPPLIED TO ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AT LEAST TWO, WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THE COUNTER-PARTY WILL STATE, BY A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADVOCATE OF THE OTHER SIDE, AT LEAST ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE FIXED WHETHER THEY WISH TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO BE DONE ONLY ON DISPUTED AND RELEVANT ASPECT AS PERMITTED BY THE COURT." 5. THAT HOWEVER, THE COURT SUBSEQUENTLY ABANDONED THE PROCEDURE SO PRESCRIBED MIDWAY, FOR NO RECORDED REASON. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS A RESULT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLAINING THE SO-CALLED ADMISSIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE APPELLANTS AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE COURT. 6. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AS FAR BACK AS ON 4-6-2003 FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT SEEKING THE ASSISTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ASKING FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. THESE PRAYERS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE SPECIAL COURT. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THIS HAS JEOPARDISED THE APPELLANTS DEFENCE. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SPECIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPELLED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 10-3-2003 AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE PRAYER MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 4-6-2003 BEFORE CONCLUDING THE MATTER AGAINST THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AFORESAID, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE SPECIAL COURT FOR DISPOSAL. THE SPECIAL COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AFORESAID, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE SPECIAL COURT FOR DISPOSAL. THE SPECIAL COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT IS GIVING AN UNDERTAKING ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT C THAT HE WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 8. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS.