While observers feel that is the case, Union Home Minister L K Advani differs. The ongoing investigations, he told The Indian Express, are very much in order and would lead to further ``disclosures''. He is also sure of the prosecution getting a conviction.

But observers point out that the ground reality is different. Consider, for example, Advani's directive a fortnight ago to CBI Director Trinath Mishra, to submit before him by November-end, the agency's preliminary report on the alleged politician-bureaucrat-police officer connection in theSharma case. There is still no sign of the report.

On the other hand, the CBI's go-slow approach has taken a toll on other aspects of the case. The last ``breakthrough'', if it can be called that, was effected a week before the Assembly elections, when a team of CBI officials swooped down on the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in search of a ``missing file'', reportedly containing details of a passport having been hurriedly issued to Dawood's mother after the Mumbai serial blasts. At least five MEA officials (including an under-secretary) were grilled.

But that was that. The file is still missing and no follow-up action has been taken on the grilled officials' disclosure.

According to a senior CBI official, there is ``nothing unusual'' in the way the probe seems to have meandered in the past two weeks. The lightning raids on Reliance Industries and its Delhi-based representative V Balasubramaniam are believed to have dealt one of the biggest setbacks to the case. That was when the Government madepublic its sudden aversion for the Official Secrets Act. Many in the North Block saw it as a not-so-subtle message to the investigators.

Advani, however, hints that lot more is to come out in the matter. ``I am awaiting a detailed CBI report which will shed light on the politician-bureaucrat-police nexus that Romesh used to his convenience. It is amazing that a Dawood man sat pretty in the country's Capital for so many years. I want to find out how many people helped him, at what level,'' he says.

Advani did not rule out launching fresh investigations against officials, if their involvement with Sharma could be proved. However, he warns,``Mere association does not mean connivance in a crime. Similarly, attending parties thrown by an accused does not constitute an offence, if it does not show anything beyond mere association.''

A public servant's connivance with Sharma, Advani holds, could be established on two counts: (a) if somebody helped him in his illegal activities, or (b) even after coming acrossevidence of his illegal acts, the person took no action against him.

However, notwithstanding the Union Home Minister's assurance of speed and fair play in the case, a few key questions remain unanswered. For instance, how come even after registeration of as many as five separate cases against Sharma and the accompanying evidence showing his clout in top Government circles, not a single senior bureaucrat, politician or policeman has been questioned till date?