Order The Criminal Revisions preferred under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (both hereinafter referred to as the Code) have been heard and being decided by a common order. 2. The petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar has requested in Criminal Revision No. 646 of 2006 for quashment/setting aside of the impugned order dated 18.3.2006, passed by Sri K.K. Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 30/89 (Patna Vigilance Case No. 5/89), by which prayer for his discharge from the alleged offence was rejected. 3. Another petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar has made similar prayer in Criminal Revision No. 647 of 2006 for quashment/setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.5.2006, by which Sri K.K. Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has rejected his petition for discharge in Special Case No. 30/89 (patna Vigilance Case No. 5/89). 4. In Criminal Revision No. 779 of 2006, the petitioner Brij Kis.hore Jhawar has requested for quashment/setting aside the impugned order dated 3.7.2006, by which the Special Judge (Vigila'1ce), Ranchi framed the charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act against him and another in Special Case No. 30/89. The petitioner has requested for stay of further proceedings in the said case during pendency of the criminal revision. 5. Petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar in Criminal Revision No. 777 of 2006 has made similar prayer for quashment/setting aside of the order dated 3.7.2006, by which charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was framed against him and another and stay of further criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 30/89 pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi. . 6. Petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar in Criminal M.P. No. 1216 of 2009 by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has made almost similar prayer for quashment/setting aside of the order dated 3.7.2006, passed by Sri K.K. Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 30/89, by which charge was framed against him and also for stay of further proceedings. 7. 7. Petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar again in Criminal M.P. No. 1217 of 2009 by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has made similar request for quashment/setting aside of the order impugned dated 18.3.2006, by which prayer for his discharge from criminal prosecution was rejected in Special Case No. 30/89 by Sri K.K. Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, now pending before Sri Binay Kant Khan, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi. 8. Petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar in Criminal M.P. No. 1218 of 2009 by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has made similar prayer for quashment/setting aside of the order impugned dated 3.7.2006, by which charge was framed against him under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and also for stay of further proceedings in Special Case No. 30/89 pending before Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi. 9. The petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar in Criminal M.P. No. 1219 of 2009 has requested for quashment/setting aside of the order dated 24.5.2006, by which his petition for discharge was rejected by Sri KK Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 30/89 and also for stay of further proceedings in the said case during pendency of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Prosecution story in short was that the informant Mohan Rajak, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department (Electricity Board), Patna presented a written report before the Officer-in-charge-cum-Dy. S.P., C.I.D. (Bihar State Electricity Board), Patna on 16.6.89 alleging, inter alia, that upon preliminary investigation, it was gathered by him that during the period from April, 1986 to December, 1988, the Bihar State Electricity Board suffered heavy loss to the tune of about Rs. 4,00,00,0001- (Four Crores) by causing undue pecuniary benefits to M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. It was alleged therein that three Electrical Engineers of the Bihar State Electricity Board, namely, Anandi Rai, Vijay Bhusan Prasad and Subodh Narayan in collusion with Shri Brij Kishore Jhawar, Managing Director of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. and its Chief Executive Officer Shri O.P. Kapila in prosecution of criminal conspiracy, caused heavy pecuniary loss to the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The aforementioned conclusion could be drawn by the informant from recording and comparing the readings of the meters installed at the Grid Sub-Station, Adityapur with that of the consumer's, installed within the factory premises of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., Gamhariya. The Board had supplied electricity from the power grid through well maintained good quality of cable wire for long 6 kms but variation of lakhs of units were detected at the factory end. The informant further alleged by giving a detailed chart that the electricity consumed, as recorded in the meter at the consumer's premises (M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd.), did not correlate with the production in the said factory. The informant alleged in the written report that the abovenamed Engineers of Bihar State Electricity Board extended undue favour by facilitating M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. and the former accepted outstation cheques of the said factory against the electricity bills and thereby deprived the B.S.E.B. of the genuine interest and early encashment of the cheques to its account. By giving a detailed chart the informant alleged that as against consumption of 39.95 lakh units of electricity in the month of November, 1986, production was shown 5557.21 Metric Tons of steel in the works of M/s . Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., whereas in the month of November, 1988, production was shown to the extent of 7702.82 Metric Tons from the consumption of 39.56 lakh units of electricity. It would be relevant to mention, the informant added, that the meter installed at the power grid station had shown supply of 44.58 lakh units and 57.76 lakh units of electricity for the respective period aforesaid. The Informant further added that consumption of electricity was shown from the grid in the higher side, whereas it was recorded at the lower side in the meter installed in the factory premises, yet, production of steel was shown in the factory at much higher side, disproportionate to the electricity consumption shown in the factory which could be possible only on account of nexus between the Management of the said Company and the Engineers of the Electricity Board. By giving a separate chart, it was alleged that loss of B.S.E.B. was accounted to the tune of Rs. 3.2462 crores. By giving a separate chart, it was alleged that loss of B.S.E.B. was accounted to the tune of Rs. 3.2462 crores. When the Meter Reading Committee, constituted foe examining the irregularities and illegalities, examined the Trivector meter in the works of the consumer on 31.3.1987, it was detected that the maximum limit demand load was not working and the committee recommended the Superintending Engineer for testing of the said meter. The meter was removed from the installation on 30.4.1987 for test but . since it was misplaced at the instance of the consumer, the meter could not be tested which amounted criminal act, i.e. tampering the evidence. The informant had reason to assess that theft of electricity was continuing at the works of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., Gamhariya since much prior to 1996 and that the Management of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. had got the electricity load raised from 13 KV A to 19.6 KV A with the intention to screen such pilfering though there was agreement between the parties for supply, of 6.5 KV A to the factory but such load was raised at the instance of the Electrical Engineers of the B.S.E.B. i.e. the accused in this case without accepting deposits of the security amount and thereby loss was incurred to the Board which was assessed to the tune of Rs. 37 lakhs. On the basis of written report presented by the informant, Criminal lnvestigation Department (Electricity Board) Patna, P.S. Case No. 5/89 was registered on 16.6.1989 for the alleged offence under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also under Sections 39/39A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 against Anandi Rai, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, Vijay Bhusan Prasad, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamshedpur, Subodh Narayan, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electricity Supply SubDivision, Adityapur-II, Brij Kishore Jhawar of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., Gamhariya and O.P. Kapila, Chief Executive Officer of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., Gamhariya. 11. 11. As discussed above, charge against the petitioners Basant Kumar Jhawar and Brij Kishore Jhawar was framed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 30/89 on 3.7.2006 for the alleged offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 besides, as also against the Company-M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd., Gamhariya now M/s Usha Martin Industries Ltd. in the following manner,- "I, K.K. Srivastava, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi hereby charge you M/s Usha Alloy & Steel Ltd., Gamhariya, Jamshedpur, now M/s Usha Martin Indwstries Ltd., Basant Kumar Jhawar and Braj Kishore Jhawar, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director-Director of said M/s. Usha Alloy & Steel Ltd. that you during 81 to 88 at Gamhariya, Jamshedpur dishonestly abstracted, consumed or used electric energy of Bihar State Electricity Board by getting inappropriate C.T. installed to the meter in the premises of M/s Usha Alloy & Steel Ltd., by not getting the electric load of M/s Usha Alloy & Steel Ltd. properly enhanced, by not getting the bills for the consumed electric energy recorded and raised by getting wrong reports concealing actual state of affairs in respect to actual consumption of electric energy submitted and by not getting the fixed monthly average bill proportionally enhanced in terms of enhancement of electric load and put the Board to the loss of Crores during June, 86 Dec. 88 only and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 39 of Electricity Act and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge." 12. Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was substituted by Act 31 of 1986 which deals with theft of energy,- "Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees, or with both; and if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer." 13. Though charge-sheet was filed for the alleged offence as also under Section 39A but the prosecution did not prefer to propose charge of abetment for the offence under Section 39A or Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act) against the petitioners. 14. Charge is defined,- "Precise formulation of specific accusation." But here I find that a detailed accusation has been made partly based upon the provision of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and partly on the evidence collected in course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. I further find that the latter part of the charge framed does not constitute the offence under Section 39 of the Act as referred to hereinbefore and therefore, there appears patent irregularity of curable form in framing of charge. 15. Mr. Kapur, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while arguing on the point of discharge of the petitioners submitted that in course of investigation Bihar State Electricity Board had constituted a High Power Committee to enquire into the causes of the loss of energy, particularly to find out whether energy had been purloined by M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. (in short Company) in collusion with the Engineers of the Electricity Board in which Investigating Officer of the instant case Shri Upendra Kumar was also one of the members. The Committee by its report dated 19.1.1996 stated that there was no evidence whatsoever of malpractice nor evidence of collusion with any of the Board's officials could be found. It was further observed by the Committee that the difference in meter readings was due to installation of under capacity current transformer in the factory of the Company which was done by the officials of the Electricity Board and this was only the technical reason for the difference in readings at the power grid end and another in the meter installed at the works. 16. Mr. Kapur pointed out that on the basis of the report of the High Power Committee, the Board arbitrarily had raised a supplementary bill for RS.11.61 crores for a period of 25 years without any breakup whatsoever. 16. Mr. Kapur pointed out that on the basis of the report of the High Power Committee, the Board arbitrarily had raised a supplementary bill for RS.11.61 crores for a period of 25 years without any breakup whatsoever. Petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar, who was only a Director and some times acted as Chairman of the Company, was initially neither named in the F.I.R. nor his name appeared as an accused in the charge-sheet submitted on 17.9.1996 but almost after eight years of the F.I.R. and six months after the first charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer opted to file second charge-sheet as against the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar by referring certain paragraphs of the case diary viz. 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068 and 1069 though these paragraphs were available in the case diary• at the time of submission of first charge-sheet and that 'there was no fresh material for inclusion of the name of the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar in the column of the accused which reflected the mala fide intention of the Investigating Officer. 17. Mr. Kapur, the learned Sr. Counsel urged that though there was allegation of miscalculation (theft of energy) worth Rupees Four Crores by incurring loss to the B.S.E.B. but the Company meanwhile compensated the B.S.E.B. by making payment of Rs. 6.34 crores and the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) ignored that the High Power Committee had given clean chit to the petitioners and the Engineers of the Board while framing of charge and as the report of the High Power Committee was part and parcel of the case, brought on the record, it was carrying probative value and there was no justification in framing of charge against the petitioners. 18. Mr. Kapur further explained that paragraph No. 1065 of the case diary contained that Basant Kumar Jhawar at some point of time during 1982-85 had acted as Chairman of the Company but without allegation of any criminal overt act. The Investigating Officer actually exonerated the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar and observed that he had nothing to do with the day-to-day working of the Company at its works at Gamhariya, whereas Shri O.P. Kapila was the President of the Company and in-charge of works of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. Its day-to-day work was to be managed by the President of the Company. 19. With reference to paragraph No. 1067 of the case diary, the learned Sr. 19. With reference to paragraph No. 1067 of the case diary, the learned Sr. Counsel attracted the attention by submitting that certain notes on the contents of the Memorandum/Articles of Association of the Company were formally copied from the constitutional documents prepared at the time of formation of the Company pertained to the day-to-day management and affairs at the Gamhariya works of the Company having no relevancy at all in the context of charge whereas, it was admitted by the Investigating Officer that it was O.P. Kapila, who was managing the works and nobody else. Paragraph No.1 068 of the case diary indicated that in the Annual Report of the Company, beginning from year 1977-78 to 1982-83, it was stated that at the relevant time the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar was the Chairman and Director of the Company which also did not correlate the charge framed against him. In paragraph No. 1069 the Investigating Officer recorded that certain forms and documents were signed and filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata with regard to some irrelevant items of the company's business, but none of these documents correlated the conduct of the company's business at the works at Gamhariya. Therefore, not even one incriminating piece of evidence could be revealed in the case diary, referring to anything done by the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar, at any point of time related to. alleged malpractice or pilferation of electricity in collusion with Board officials, yet, the Special Judge (Vigilance) framed charge against the petitioners Basant Kumar Jhawar, Brij Kishore Jhawar and Mis Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. (perhaps erroneously). While rejecting the petition of the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar for his discharge on 18.3.2006 the Special Judge observed, "From perusal of the records, it appears that the Charge-Sheet NO.7 dated 20.3.97 against the petitioner was submitted on 22.3.97 and thereafter cognizance was taken against the petitioner. An order-sheet dated 22.8.97 shows that earlier the petitioner had filed to discharge from the case and was rejected by this Court. I also perused the Case Diary and CD. No. 238 paras 1065, 1067, 1068 and 1069 which shows that the petitioner was the Chairman as well as the Director of the said Company and also find that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to frame charges. I also perused the Case Diary and CD. No. 238 paras 1065, 1067, 1068 and 1069 which shows that the petitioner was the Chairman as well as the Director of the said Company and also find that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to frame charges. In the above facts and circumstances coupled with the material available in C.D., I have come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner to proceed with this case. Hence, the discharge petition dated 30.1.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar is hereby rejected." 20. Petitioners had requested before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 30/89 for their discharge on the sole ground that there was no material at all on the record to proceed against any of them for the alleged offence under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and that the only material that was shown on the record contained in the above paragraphs of the case diary did not constitute prima facie case for framing of charge against the petitioners for the said offence. 21. Similarly, the learned Special Judge while dealing with the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar, observed,- "From perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that he is named in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. From perusal of the case diary no. 238, paras 1065, 1067, 1068 shows that the petitioner was Managing Director of the Company. I also find that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to frame the charge." With such observation, petition filed for discharge of the petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar was rejected by the order dated 24.5.2006 by the Special Judge. Subsequently, charge was framed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi against the petitioner on 3.7.2006 alongwith others for the alleged offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. 22. Mr. Subsequently, charge was framed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi against the petitioner on 3.7.2006 alongwith others for the alleged offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. 22. Mr. Kapur further urged that although the Special Judge while considering the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not required to give detailed reasons but before coming to the conclusion the Court was required to apply its judicial mind on the materials placed before him for his subjective satisfaction and in the instant case, it would be patent that the learned Special Judge simply quoted certain paragraphs of the case diary without disclosing prima facie materials contained therein and rejected the petition without application of judicial mind. 23. In Soma Chakraborty's case, reported in (2007)5 SCC 403 , pro 10, the Apex Court held,- "Before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of an offence by the accused was possible." 24. Similarly, in Dilawar Balu Kurane's case, reported in (2002)2 SCC 135 , it was held,- "by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused he will be fully justified to discharge the accused the Judge cannot act as merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case. the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court. " 25. But, in the present case, the learned Sr. Counsel added that there was no material at all to justify framing of charge against the petitioners although Special Judge was not required to give detailed reasons to point out prima facie materials and that the materials shown and projected by the prosecution by referring certain paragraphs were certainly not sufficient to prima facie constitute an offence against any of them. Special Judge neither could see nor did he refer to the report submitted by the High Power Committee constituted by the Bihar State Electricity Board, though it was a part of the record by which the petitioners were exonerated from their criminal liability and the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. by the informant were disbelieved and the High Power Committee constituted by the Bihar State Electricity Board did not make any allegation of theft of electricity in collusion. 26. Advancing his argument, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not project any bar to examine the defence materials when produced before the Court at the time of framing of charge. 27. In Rukmini Narvekar's case, reported in (2008)14 SCC 1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held,- "where some defence materials when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous and in such very rare cases the defence materials can be looked into by the court at the time of framing of the charge or taking of cognizance." 28. Mr. Kapur further submitted that the petitioner Basant Kumar Jhawar was admittedly the Chairman of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. now reckoned as M/s Usha Martin Industries Ltd. for a limited period and the petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar was the Managing Director of the said Company but no cogent material could be brought on the record sufficient to frame charge against any of them and with the materials contained in some paragraphs referred to above, it was not possible for the prosecution to ensure their conviction. 29. It was held by the Apex Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Shalla and Another, reported in (2007)4 SCC 70 [ : 2007(2) JLJR (SC)56] pro 20, "The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. Only because Respondent 1 herein was party to a purported resolution dated 15 2.1995 by• itself does not lead to an inference that she was actively associated with the management of the affairs of the Company. Only because Respondent 1 herein was party to a purported resolution dated 15 2.1995 by• itself does not lead to an inference that she was actively associated with the management of the affairs of the Company. This Court in this case has categorically held that there may be a large number of Directors but some of them may not associate themselves in the management of the day-to-day affairs of the Company and, thus, are not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. The averments must state that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Requirements laid down therein must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. When a legal fiction is raised, the ingredients there for must be satisfied." 30. Mr. Kapur concluded his argument by explaining that paragraph 1065 of the case diary, drawn by the Investigating Officer, was clear that Shri O.P. Kapila was the President of the Company and in charge of the works of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. situated at Gamhariya. Day to-day's works of the Company was also managed/looked after by the President of the Company. Correspondence with the Company's head office was also done by the President. In view of such finding of the Investigating Officer in the case diary made in course of investigation of the case suggested the innocence of the petitioners and their criminal prosecution would amount to gross miscarriage of justice. 31. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kashyap, appearing on behalf of the State Vigilance opposite party, briefly submitted that whether a Chairman/Director was in overall charge of the Company and was saddled with the vicarious liability 'of pilfering electricity stealthily in their works incurring heavy loss to the Bihar State Electricity Board in collusion with its officials was a question of fact, which could be decided only by adducing evidence on behalf of the parties during trial as such impugned orders needed no interference. 32. 32. Paragraph 1068 of the case diary indicated that Investigating Officer after examining certified copy of the Annual Reports of M/s Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. beginning from financial years 197879 to 1982-83 gathered that the petitioner Brij Kishore Jhawar was the Managing Director of the said Company and for the subsequent financial year, he was the Vice President as well. It was further gathered upon perusal of the Annual Statements by the Investigating Officer that Shri Basant Kumar Jhawar was the Chairman-cum-Director of the said Company and during his tenure, electricity supply was pilfered in the works at Gamhariya. Investigating Officer further gathered during investigation that all the statutory documents related to the 'Limited Company was endorsed by Brij Kishor Jhawar as Managing Director whereas Basant Kumar Jhawar was shown as Chairman. The offence was related to theft of electricity worth Rupees Four Crares by the works of the Company and the petitioners being the Chairman and Director/Managing Director could not be exonerated rightly by the Special Judge at the stage of framing of charge. 33. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a detailed argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners and reply made by the counsel for the opposite parties, I find substance that the learned Special' Judge (Vigilance) after perusal of the certain paragraphs of the case diary and upon his subjective satisfaction on the basis of materials on the record found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners for the charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Petitioners have filed so many petitions under various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure even by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside/quashment of their criminal proceedings by discharging tI'em, which were pending since long and by this common order, all their petitions are rejected having been found devoid of merit. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kapur failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order impugned recorded by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 30/89 so as to call for interference in the impugned orders by which the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected on the respective dates and charge was framed against them under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. I subscribe the view and submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kashyap appearing for the opposite party State Vigilance that whether a Chairman/Managing Director/Director was an overall in-charge of a works in the given circumstances of day-to-day's work and was saddled with vicarious liability was a question of fact which can be decided only by adducing evidence. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kapur appearing for the petitioners failed to demonstrate that prosecution version was totally absurd or preposterous and impugned orders were illegal or irregular so as to call for interference in exercise of either inherent power or revisional jurisdiction. Since the petitions herein are devoid of merits, all are rejected however with the direction to the Special Judge to conclude the trial of Special Case No. 30/89 preferably within eight months of the receipt of this order. In view of the above discussions and since the IA. No. 1739 of 2009 and IA. No. 1740 of 2009 were not pressed, these two applications stand dismissed as being not pressed.