JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18th July, 2000 passed in R.C. Case No. 13 of 1988(D) by Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby learned Magistrate has closed the prosecution evidence, fixing date for recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons. 2. In the petition, it has been stated that the closure of the evidence is contrary to law and the prosecution will be deprived of the opportunity of bringing the culprit to books by the said impugned order. It has been stated that the court below has passed the said order completely ignoring the legal provisions and the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and as such, the said order is bad and unsustainable. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, opposed the petition. It has been stated that the case, in question, arose out of an F.I.R. lodged in the year 1988. The charge sheet in that case was submitted in the year 1989 and the charges were framed long back in the year 1994. For about six years, the prosecutor was given opportunity of bringing the evidences, but out of 18 (eighteen) charge sheet witnesses only six were examined. Ultimately, by the impugned order, learned Court below has closed the evidence. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has acted illegally on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar 1998CriLJ4596 which was, subsequently, held not to be a good law in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 2002CriLJ2547. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions as also decisions of the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that though the learned Magistrate has referred Rajdeo Sharma's case (Supra) otherwise also the prosecution cannot be given unlimited time for producing evidences. The accused persons have already faced the rigor of law for about 20 years by now. The prosecution was given ample opportunity for producing the evidences, but over a period of six years, the prosecution could bring only six witnesses out of 18 (eighteen) charge sheet witnesses. The accused persons have already faced the rigor of law for about 20 years by now. The prosecution was given ample opportunity for producing the evidences, but over a period of six years, the prosecution could bring only six witnesses out of 18 (eighteen) charge sheet witnesses. No ground could be made out nor it could be shown that any special circumstance existed for not bringing other witnesses during those six years. There is no explanation for not producing other charge sheet witnesses before the order impugned was passed. Learned court below has taken into consideration that the charge against the accused persons was framed long back in the year 1994 and, thereafter, during the period of six years, the prosecution could not bring other witnesses and this Court had directed the Court below to conclude the case within a given time, but due to non-production of the witnesses, the Trial Court could not conclude the case. On considering the said aspect as also other aspects, learned court below closed the evidence by the impugned order dated 18th July, 2000. 6. The decisions relied upon and referred to above by the learned court below are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. I, find no illegality or infirmity or any cogent ground, warranting intervention of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with the impugned order dated 18th July, 2000. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.