JUDGMENT 1. -The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 9/2008(41/2006), whereby the evidence of the prosecution has been closed except two witnesses. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application before the trial Court on 21.01.2009 for summoning witnesses namely, Pragati Vyas, Ved Vyas, Govind Narain Purohit, Dinesh Vasistha, Dr. Rajeshwari, Dr. Hira Lal Bairwa, Dr. Narendra Sharma, Dr. V.L. Kathia, Dr. Purushottam Meena, Dr. Rajesh Verma, Dr. S.K. Pathak and two Judicial Officers, namely Shri Kamal Chhangani and Shri Hari Mohan Gupta, but the said application was opposed by the Counsel for the accused-respondents on the ground that the accused are undergoing trial in this case for last 11 years and the prosecution is delaying the matter and is having no interest in producing the witnesses. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, closed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses except two Judicial Officers, vide its order impugned dated 21.01.2009. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.01.2009, the petitioner had preferred a criminal revision before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2009- State of Rajasthan v. Bharat Bhushan Pareek & Others , and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2009 with liberty to file fresh petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Therefore, the present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order impugned dated 21.01.2009 on the ground that the FIR in the matter was lodged on 10.09.1997 and initially challan was filed against six accused and supplementary challan was filed against one more accused and charges were framed in February, 1999. Further the second supplementary challan was filed against four accused in 2005 and third supplementary challan was filed against one more accused in 2006 and charges against these accused were framed in September, 2006. 5. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Court below. 6. It is not disputed that 22 witnesses have already been examined but the prosecution delayed and failed to produce the evidence. 5. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Court below. 6. It is not disputed that 22 witnesses have already been examined but the prosecution delayed and failed to produce the evidence. Looking to the nature and gravity of offence, the State appointed Special Public Prosecutor but by bare perusal of the order-sheets available on the record, it appears that the Special Public Prosecutor had not appeared before the trial Court on several occasions, which indicates that the Special Public Prosecutor is not interested in completion of the trial and after lapse of more than a decade, the Special Public Prosecutor has not been able to produce evidence despite of the fact that ample opportunities have been provided. 7. Upon bare perusal of the order impugned dated 21.01.2009, the trial Court has observed as under:- rRi'pkr~ izdj.k ds 8 vfHkpqDrx.k ds fo:) vuqla/kku yfEcr j[kk x;k Fkk muesa ls f}rh; frrEck pkyku 4 vfHkpqDrx.k dfiynso j.kok] j.k/khj dMokljk] gjh'k flgkx ,oa jkts'k pkS/kjh ds fo:) o"kZ 2005 esa is'k fd;k x;k vkSj blds dqN gh le; ckn r`rh; frrEck pkyku ,d vkSj vfHk;qDr ujsUnz flgkx ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k x;kA bu ikapksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ekg flrEcj 2006 esa vkjksi lquk;k x;kA bu 5 vfHk;qDrx.k dks tc vkjksi lquk;k x;k rc rd vfHk;kstu lk{; esa 22 xokgku ds c;ku ys[kc) fd;s tk pqds Fks] ysfdu vfHk;kstu i{k ds vuqlkj vkSj dkQh xokg cdk;k gksus ls lHkh 12 vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ,d lkFk fopkj.k tkjh j[kk x;k vkSj vfHk;kstu i{k dks ;g funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd os frrEck pkyku ds 5 vfHk;qDrx.k ftudks flrEcj 2006 esa vkjksi lquk;k x;k gS] muds dze esa ijhf{kr 22 xokgku esa ls fdlh Hkh xokg dks iqu% bu vfHk;qDrx.k ds dze esa iwjd c;ku gsrq ryc djus o djokus dks Lora= gSa vkSj 22 xokgku ds vkxs lHkh 12 vfHk;qDrx.k ds dze esa vkSj lk{; is'k fd;s tkus dks Lora= gSA 8. Perusal of the order impugned also reveals that on 26.08.2005 Shri Harimohan Gupta, Judicial Officer was present in the Court but in absence of the Special Public Prosecutor, his statement could not be recorded and he was not examined. 9. Perusal of the order impugned also reveals that on 26.08.2005 Shri Harimohan Gupta, Judicial Officer was present in the Court but in absence of the Special Public Prosecutor, his statement could not be recorded and he was not examined. 9. The trial Court also observed that in the order-sheets dated 02.09.2005 and 06.09.2005, it has been mentioned that the Special Public Prosecutor was not present on the said dates and thereafter a letter was written to the Law Department to direct the Special Public Prosecutor to remain present in the Court on the next date i.e. 24.09.2005, but on the said date also the Special Public Prosecutor was not present in the Court. 10. In the manner the Special Public Prosecutor is handling the trial of case itself reveals that he is not at all interest in progress of the trial, as mentioned in the order impugned, which is reproduced as under:- blds ckn fnukad 17-3-2007 dh vknsf'kdk esa ;g vafdr gS fd xokg izxfr O;kl dh rkehy tfj;s lEeu o tekurh okjaV vusd ckj tkjh dh xbZ] rkehy dqfuUnk dks xokg ds firk xokg ds ckgj gksuk dFku djrs gq, ykSVk nsrs gSa] vkt dh is'kh ds fy;s tkjh tekurh okjaV ij Hkh xokg ds firk osnO;kl dh fjiksVZ gS fd esjh csVh izxfr O;kl fQj vkt t;iqj ls ckgj gS] rkehy dqfuUnk dh fjiksVZ gS] dgka xbZ gS irk crkvks exj irk ugha crk;k x;kA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd bl xokg dks vfHk;kstu i{k jksds j[kuk pkgrk gSA fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd Jh misUnzukFk 'kekZ us fuosnu fd;k fd izxfr O;kl dks lk{; esa is'k djus gsrq mUgsa Lo;a Lora=rk iznku dh tk;sA lquk x;kA fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd dks ;g Lora=rk iznku dh tkrh gS fd os 6 ekg ds Hkhrj lk{; vfHk;kstu gsrq tks Hkh vafre rkjh[k is'kh gksxh] ml is'kh rd fdlh Hkh rkjh[k is'k dks bl xokg dks lk{; eas ijhf{kr djkus ds fy;s Lora= gS vkSj ftl fnu mls is'k djs mlds de ls de ,d fnu iwoZ vfHk;qDrx.k ds vf/koDrkvksa dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA mDr vof/k esa xokg dks is'k ugha djus ij bl xokg dh lk{; cUn djus ds fy;s dBksj dne mBkus ds fy;s vnkyr dks ck/; gksuk iMsxkA 11. On 26.11.2008, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted a list of 12 witnesses for examination and as per the list the witnesses were summoned by the trial Court from 08.12.2008 to 16.12.2008 and the Special Public Prosecutor was also given liberty to produce them before the Court by making personal efforts, but the Special Public Prosecutor utterly failed in co-operating with the trial, as is evident from the observations of the trial Court made vide order impugned dated 21.01.2009 as under:- blds ckotwn fLFkfr esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha gqvkA fnukad 16-12-2008 dh vknsf'kdk esa ;g vafdr gS fd ;fn vfHk;kstu i{k dh fLFkfr ij ,d n`f"V Mkyh tk;s rks vR;Ur gh nq[kn fLFkfr gSA xr 6 o"kksZ ds nkSjku ek= xokgku ds Ms< c;ku gq, gSa vFkkZr~ fnukad 25-10-2002 ds i'pkr~ ih0M0 22 ds c;ku fnukad 29-7-2005 dks gq, rFkk ih0M0 11 ds iwjd c;ku fnukad 13-12-2007 dks gq,] bl izdkj 6 o"kZ dh vof/k ds nkSjku ek= Ms< xokg ds c;ku ys[kc) gq,A vknsf'kdk esa vkxs vafdr fd;k x;k fd fnukad 26-11-2008 dh vknsf'kdk ds vuqlkj fnukad 12-1-2009 ls 17-1-2009 rd iqu% xokgku dh rkehy tkjh dh tk;s] mlds ckn fnukad 19-1-2009 ls 21-1-2009 rd rhu fnu dk le; vfHk;kstu i{k dks vkSj fn;k tkrk gS] bl vof/k eas vfHk;kstu i{k ftl fdlh xokg dks xokg lqph esa is'k djuk pkgs] rks is'k djus ds fy;s Lora= gS vkSj U;k;ky; ls dksbZ rkehy nLrh ysuk pkgs rks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd bl gsrq Hkh Loar= gSA blds ckn lk{; vfHk;kstu gsrq vkSj LFkxu ugha fn;k tk;sxkA lk{; vfHk;kstu mDr vof/k ds ckn cUn@lekIr le>h tk;sxh vkSj fnukad 31-1-2009 dks c;ku eqyfte ys[kc) fd;s tk;saxsA 12. Thus, it appears that the Special Public Prosecutor wants to linger on the trial for the reasons best known to him. It also shows that without making any effort to produce the witnesses, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal misc. petition and this Court vide order dated 06.05.2009, stayed the further proceedings pending before the Court below. 13. Upon careful perusal of the order impugned and looking to the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, it reveals that the Special Public Prosecutor is not at all interested in expeditious trial of the matter, on the contrary, he wants to linger on the trial. 13. Upon careful perusal of the order impugned and looking to the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, it reveals that the Special Public Prosecutor is not at all interested in expeditious trial of the matter, on the contrary, he wants to linger on the trial. Despite of several opportunities provided to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to produce the prosecution evidence, which itself shows that the prosecution is not interested in progress of the trial. 14. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find no illegality or error in the order impugned dated 21.01.2009 passed by the trial Court and the same requires no interference whatsoever by this Court. 15. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. The interim order dated 06.05.2009 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******