In a petition filed before Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke, the counsel for Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal alias `Mamaji', Santosh Kumar Chauriha, sought the closure on the basis of directions issued by the apex court recently.

The court has asked the prosecuting agency (CBI) to file its reply by April 20, the next date of hearing in the case.

In its judgement in Raj Deo Sharma vs State of Bihar, the apex court said that in cases where trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years, court shall close prosecution evidence on completion of two years from the date of recording of the plea of accused on the chargesframed.

As per the Supreme Court directions, it is immaterial whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within two years and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.

However, if the inability to complete the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, the court will not close the prosecution evidence, the apex court said.

The petition filed by Chandraswami and Mamaji said that under Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.

They sought benefit of Supreme Court directions saying further prosecution evidence in the case should be closed as ``till the date of filing of this petition, prosecution has not completed the trial."

The duo said that closure of the case was all the more necessary as their fundamental right to travel abroad had been restricted on account of pendency of thecase.

They submitted inability for completing the prosecution evidence within two years was not attributable to their conduct and that they had not done any such act as would protract the trial.

On the contrary, they accused CBI of not being vigilant as the matter was pending for examination on commission of Canadian witness W E Miller since August 23, 1997. They requested the court not to give any fresh opportunity to the prosecution for recording of evidence.

Charges in the case were framed against Rao, Chandraswami and Mamaji on November 6, 1996 when all of them pleaded not guilty. Since then the CBI has examined several witnesses including complainant Lakhubhai Pathak and his son Yogesh Pathak.

On February 24 last, CBI counsel A K Dutt informed the court that Canadian authorities had sought clarification on the need to re-examine Miller as the CBI had already recorded his statement with the help of Canadian Police in 1988. A letter clarifying that the witness was to be examined and cross-examinedby defence counsel as per the Indian laws had already been sent to them, Dutt had told Bharihoke.

According to CBI, it would take at least two months' time for finalisation of procedures and dates for examining Miller, in whose accounts London-based pickle tycoon Pathak had allegedly deposited one lakh dollars in 1983.

Chandraswami and Mamaji had allegedly cheated Pathak in December 1983 on the promise of getting him newsprint and paper pulp supply contract in India, CBI said. The agency had registered an FIR based on Pathak's complaint on February 5, 1988.

In the chargessheet filed on May 1, 1996, the CBI named only Chandraswami and Mamaji and Rao was left out. Pathak, who died in April 1997, named Rao as an accused during recording of his testimony by the then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Prem Kumar here in July 1996.

Rao was summoned as an accused in the case on July 9, 1996 following Pathak's statement that Rao's alleged assurance led to the payment of one lakh dollar to Chandraswami to secure apaper pulp contract in India.