Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order dated 25.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1427 of 2014 in C.C.No.1 of 2014 and consequently to direct him to allow the prosecution to use the previous evidence of R.S.Ponraj Pandi (PW-3), in the fresh proceeding. 2. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for customs for petitioner and also learned Senior Counsel for first respondent. 3. This petition challenges the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1427 of 2014 in C.C.No.1 of 2014. By way of such miscellaneous petition, prosecution informed that the evidence of P.W.3, which earlier had been recorded (in the year 2005) may be accepted in keeping with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since he, presently was incapable of deposing, as he was suffering from amnesia. The respondent had raised objections informing that this Court under orders in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.423 of 2007 dated 25.08.2014, had directed that the earlier evidence recorded in the case is to be scrapped. Court below upheld such contention and dismissed Cr.M.P.No.1427 of 2014 in C.C.No.1 of 2014, thus leading to the present Criminal Original Petition. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that though Special Leave Petition moved against the order of this Court in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.423 of 2007 was dismissed, the same did not amount to a finding on appeal and as such it would be open for the prosecution to canvass that it was necessary for permitting the earlier evidence of P.W.3 to go on record through recourse to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that when this Court passed orders in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.423 of 2007, the position that P.W.3 was not in a state to depose was not to its knowledge. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate ( (1998) 5 SCC 749 ) to submit that this Court could exercise power of review in criminal matters. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for first respondent would submit that the order under challenge is in keeping with the decision of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.423 of 2007. The fact that Special Leave Petition against such decision has been dismissed at the stage of admission rendered it final. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for first respondent would submit that the order under challenge is in keeping with the decision of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.423 of 2007. The fact that Special Leave Petition against such decision has been dismissed at the stage of admission rendered it final. It would not be open to petitioner now to seek acceptance of evidence which had been directed to be scrapped. He would further submit that the case relates to an occurrence of the year 1989. The complaint was filed in 2003 and the case is pending trial from the year 2004. As such it is necessary that a direction be issued towards early disposal of the case. 6. This Court is of the view that a proper understanding of paragraph 18(d) of the order of this Court passed in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.423 of 2007 would aid in settling the issue. Paragraph 18(d) of the said order reads as follows: "(d) The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to scrap the earlier evidence recorded in this case and directed to record the evidence afresh and after giving due opportunity to the parties. The complaint can be taken cognizance for the remaining offences and directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law." It is apparent that what is directed to be scrapped is the oral evidence recorded in the case. The direction to record evidence after giving opportunity to the parties necessarily would mean that the exhibits in the case could be marked afresh. As a matter of fact, it is informed that six witnesses have been examined pursuant to order of this Court and exhibits have been marked through them. Therefore, regards exhibits in the hand or bearing signature of person earlier examined as P.W.3, resort may be had to Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. Taking into consideration the submission of learned Senior Counsel for first respondent regards the long pendency of the case, there shall be a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observation and direction, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand disposed of.