JUDGEMENT Shailesh Kr.Sinha, J. 1. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who happens to be an Advocate of this Court appearing in person. 2. Petitioner before joining the Bar was in the Service of State Government and is facing trial vide Special Case No. 158 of 1983 arising out of Vigilance Case No.. 37(4)78 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Bihar, Patna. 3. The relevant extract of the prayer in this writ application, as also in written argument filed on 23.3.2011 is quoted below: "necessary direction may kindly be given to the Court below and the prosecution for giving records in compliance of the provisions of law under Section 7(A)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988 which is equivalent to Section 22 of the P.C. Act and for which the petition dated 22.7.2006 has been filed on affidavit with seven remainders thereon." 4. It has been contended by the petitioner, so long the prayer for documents as mentioned in his petition dated 22.7.2006 is not disposed of, he could not enter into defence and adduce his defence witnesses. The trial Court despite several request by filing petition, did not pass any orders on his petition dated 22.7.2006, hence the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ application for directing the Court below to consider and dispose of his petition dated 22.7.2006 vide Annexure- 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.3.2011. 5. The relevant facts for disposal of the case are as given below: The petition dated 22.7.2006 was filed whereby large number of documents were sought to be produced in the Court and provide copies thereof, and also for perusal of the trial Court. The main grievanc of the petitioner in this writ application is that the aforesaid petition dated 22.7.2006, as contained in Annexure-5, of the writ application has not been disposed of as yet despite several reminders and also despite the order dated 1.12.2009, whereby the Court below fixed up the next date i.e. 11.12.2009 for passing the order on the said petition vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. The next date fixed for order was 17.12.2009, however, on 17.12.2009 petitioner filed another application, which was disposed of on 24.12.2009 vide Annexure-4 series of the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.3.2011. The next date fixed for order was 17.12.2009, however, on 17.12.2009 petitioner filed another application, which was disposed of on 24.12.2009 vide Annexure-4 series of the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.3.2011. As it appears from the order dated 24.12.2009, the petition dated 17,12.2009 was filed on behalf of the petitioner to close the case after proper hearing and after satisfaction that prosecution has been sanctioned. The trial Court while disposing of the above petition observed that the case is pending for defence evidence since very long but the petitioner always in the habit of filing frivolous petitions only to delay, the disposal of the case. The petition dated 17.12.2009 was accordingly rejected and petitioner was directed to adduce his evidence. It further appears that petitioner, filed similar application in the Court on 27.4.2010 in continuation of his previous petition and the aforesaid petition was heard and was rejected by detailed order vide order dated 25.5.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 series to the above supplementary affidavit. 6. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State (Vigilance). 7. Mr, Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and Special P.P. (Vigilance) appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the criminal.trial in question against the petitioner is pending since 1983 and the only object of the petitioner in filing the writ application is to somehow or the other obstruct the disposal of the case and filing frivolous petitions with incorrect and vague prayer on baseless grounds. 8. In order to consider the rival sub-missions specially the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application that his petition dated 22.7.2006, whereby he made a prayer for the documents so that thereafter he could examine his defence witnesses. Petitioner has brought on record the order dated 25.5:2010, as contained in Annexure-4 series to the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.3.2011. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner vide his petition dated 27.4.2010, with a similar prayer in continuation of his previous petitions were heard, as also the rejoinder filed on behalf of the vigilance. The petitioner also prayed for summoning some of defence witnesses and also reiterated his prayer for the documents as per his petition dated 22.7.2006 which was taken into consideration in the said order. The petitioner also prayed for summoning some of defence witnesses and also reiterated his prayer for the documents as per his petition dated 22.7.2006 which was taken into consideration in the said order. The Court below while considering the above petition further took into consideration submission of the petitioner that although list of 28 defence witnesses were given out of which 5 witnesses were already examined and thereafter, defence does not want to examine further remaining witnesses; The Court below also took into consideration that the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.8.1998 and on 10.7.2004 statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) partly it was complied on 16.1.2006. The petitioner himself was examined as a defence witness on 20.1.2010 and thereafter, he examined few more witnesses on his behalf. The Court below while considering the matter took into consideration the documents already exhibited in evidence and as such, found the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was only for the purpose of delaying the disposal of the case. The petition was accordingly rejected by the said order dated 25.5.2010 with further direction that defence if so like examine his remaining witnesses on the next date failing which defence evidence will be closed. 9. The aforesaid order dated 25.5.2010 is a detailed order on the petition filed by the petitioner on 27.4.2010 and the previous petitions including the prayer of the petitioner made in his petition dated 22.7.2006, therefore it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that his request for documents has not been considered and no order has been passed. It would appear from the order dated 25.5.2010, the Court below has passed the said order considering the claim of the petitioner for documents as well. 10. It further appears on perusal of the order of the trial Court in the aforesaid trial vide Annexure-14, it would appear that the petitioner has already examined 15 defence witnesses. 11. In View of the discussions made above and on, perusal of the order dated 25.5.2010, as contained in Annexure-4 series, I find that the prayer of.the petitioner for the documents through his various petitions including the prayer made in the petition dated 22.7.2006 was considered and upon consideration the prayer was rejected by a detailed order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure-4 series). 12. 12. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ application, the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Before parting with the case, on perusal of the various averments made in the writ application as also the supplementary affidavits followed by the affidavited written argument filed by the petitioner, the Court felt very painful to find that the petitioner an elderly man of 83 years, as claimed by him and also an Advocate of the Court making serious aspersions against the judicial system, judiciary as also against the Advocates appearing on behalf of the Vigilance. The allegations, although baseless, were taken into notice only to be rejected. The petitioner being an old man of 83 years deserves to be well advised for using the language in the proceedings of the Court with full responsibility and also as per the well established norms prevalent in the Court.