\232 1ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2870/2011(From the judgement and order dated 05/01/2011 in CRLM No.16018/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PATNA)RAMESH KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF BIHAR TR.VIGILENCE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay,exemption from filing O.T.)Date: 18/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Pawan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the record it is evident that Vigilence Case No. 69/2007 was registered on 30.5.2007 against the petitioner and another under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The record also 2shows that till the date the trial Court has notbeen able to frame charge in the matter and theonly reason is that the petitioner by this time hasfiled seven applications one after anotherdemanding documents from the prosecution. In theorder dated 8.4.2010 the trial court has held asunder :-
"Perused the case record. Its perusal transpires all the relevant police papers including the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution relies upon, have been supplied on 7.11.09 as per order of this court dt. 9.10.09, against some left documents on 4.12.09 as per order of this Court dt. 4.12.09, also on 19.1.10 directly received by accused Ramesh Kumar who also received the copies of the documents in 535 pages called from the vigilance P.S. which were received by his aforesaid lawyer on 26.3.10. Bare reading the contents of the present petition clearly indicates the conduct of the petitioner who intentionally wants to delay the trial of the case by asking mostly non existent documents or some unwarranted ones in this case, because all the relevant police papers concerning the alleged allegations against the petitioner have already been supplied." This order of the trial court is upheld by 3the High Court vide impugned judgment giving riseto the instant petition. In view of the observations made by thetrial court, which have been quoted above, thisCourt is of the opinion that the High Court wasjustified in dismissing the petition which wasfiled by the petitioner under Section 482 of theCode. Having regard to the facts of the case, thetrial court is directed not to entertain anyapplication filed by the petitioner for supply ofany document and proceed with the trial on meritsof the matter immediately. Subject to above direction, the specialleave petition stands disposed of. (Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr P.A. Court Master