Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/261/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 261 of 2009
=============================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
KETAN
HASMUKHBHAI SONI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
SHIVANG J SHUKLA APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PRATIK B BAROT for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 13/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr.Shivang J. Shukla, learned APP for the respondent-State of Gujarat
and Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the respondent No.1.
Though served, no one appears for respondent No.2.
This
revision application is preferred by the State of Gujarat against the
order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No.3 vide order dated 12.01.2009 by which
request of the complainant to order further investigation under
section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be
rejected.
Learned
APP appearing of the complainant-State submits that during the course
of investigation if material is found, same can be placed before the
concerned court and accordingly further investigation can be ordered.
In the facts of this case, since mobile phones used by the accused
as well as the deceased were found it was incumbent upon the
investigating authority to call for the details of the calls made
between the accused as well as the deceased.
Even,
the Investigating Officer has not conducted scientific tests like lie
detection test or narco analysis, and therefore, learned Sessions
Judge ought to have acceded to the request of the complainant for
further investigation and thereby committed an error by rejecting
application submitted before him.
Mr.Pratik
Barot, learned advocate for the respondent-accused, submits that
learned Sessions Judge upon considering the facts that the
investigating authority had recovered all incriminating material,
including mobile phones and calls and all such material was sent for
analysis to FSL; charge was already framed and number of witnesses
have been already examined; the case is on the verge of closure and
such application submitted by complainant is to see that the accused
remain in jail for some long time, passed the impugned order.
Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record
and reasons assigned by the learned Presiding Officer and learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara in paras 8 and 9 of the
judgment and the fact that all incriminating materials have been
brought on record of the investigating agency and at this stage
subjecting accused for lie direction and narco analysis do not arise
when substantial evidence is already recorded.
No
case is made out to interfere with the impugned order and it cannot
be said that the learned Judge has committed any illegality in
refusing the application.
Accordingly,
this revision application is rejected.
[Anant
S. Dave, J.]
*pvv
Top