Cuttack: Holding that delay in the trial cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution, Orissa high court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings against expelled BJD member and former Choudwar (Cuttack) MLA Pravat Ranjan Biswal in Seashore chit fund scam, asking the designated CBI court to conclude the trial within six months.Disposing of Biswal’s petition on July 2, Justice S K Panigrahi asked the special judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar, to avoid granting unnecessary adjournments and complete the trial. “This Court requests the Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar to take steps to complete the trial within a period of six months from today,” the judge said. Justice Panigrahi added that the trial court should “stick to the timeline as far as possible”.The case pertains to the alleged multi-crore Seashore Group chit fund scam, in which CBI arrested Biswal on Sept 19, 2017. He was granted bail by the high court on June 26, 2018.The CBI has alleged that while serving as an MLA, Biswal received Rs 25 lakh in 2011 in the bank account of his wife, Laxmi Bilasini, from Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd. The CBI claimed the payment was made to secure political protection for the Seashore Group, enabling it to continue its alleged illegal financial activities in Cuttack and neighbouring areas without interference.Biswal had sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that the prolonged trial had caused serious prejudice to his political career. Appearing on Biswal’s behalf, advocate Hemant Kumar Mund said that the high court, while disposing of his earlier petition in April 2023, had directed the trial court to expedite the matter and complete it within one year from the framing of charges. The charges were framed on Sept 23, 2023, following which the first prosecution witness was examined on Dec 2 that year.Biswal’s counsel pointed out that 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He also alleged that despite a trial court order dated Jan 29, 2026, directing the CBI to produce its witnesses and shortlist those proposed for examination, the CBI had failed to comply, resulting in further delay.Countering the plea, advocate Sarthak Nayak, representing the CBI, argued that mere delay in the trial was not a legally sustainable ground for quashing criminal proceedings, a contention which the high court accepted.