JUDGMENT
M. Papanna, J.
1. Challenging the impugned order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda (Bhubaneswar) in S.T. No. 161 of 1999 rejecting the petition dated 3.9.2001 seeking further investigation for preparing a plan of the scene of occurrence Crl. Misc. Case No. 9676 of 2001 under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and Criminal Revision No. 766 of 2001 under Sections 397 and 401. Cr.P.C. have been filed by petitioners 1 to 14 and the same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners, who are facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda (Bhubaneswar) in the aforesaid S.T. Case moved a petition under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. for a direction to the C.B.I. for further investigation for preparing a plan of the scene of occurrence and to stay further proceeding of the case. The learned trial Judge having heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. and after observing that the accused persons were supplied with all the relevant documents envisaged under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. along with the copies of sketch map of village Manoharpur prepared by the Addl. Tahasildar, Anandpur as well as the spot map prepared by Anandpur Police and also the spot map prepared by the Scientific officer, D.F.S.L., Keonjhar came to hold that the contentions raised on behalf of the accused persons that the plans do not show the places wherefrom the main witnesses saw the occurrence depicting distance is not a ground for directing further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. for preparing the plan of the scene of occurrence afresh particularly when Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. is only permissible and neither the informant nor the accused can claim further investigation as a mater of right after filing of the charge sheet, in support of which he has placed reliance on 1990 Crl. L.J. 456 (Shyam Charan Dubey v. State of U.P.) wherein the law has been well settled on the point, raised at the bar.
3. In course of hearing the learned counsel, Mr. Shyamnanda Mohapatra appearing for the petitioners has addressed this Court with the contentions that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution deposed regarding identification, standing near about places of occurrence though they have never spoken the same before the investigating agency. The C.B.I, did not prepare any spot map and the spot map which is in the record does not depict the exact position of the place of occurrence as well as the distance between the different plots for which the defence could not put any specific questions regarding the truth or otherwise of statements of the witnesses and that being so for fair trial and for effective cross-examination of the witnesses, a detail spot map is required to be made available by the prosecution.
4. The apart the Sessions case now being tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda has arisen out of a G.R. Case No. 22/99 coming within the sessions jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. The main accused Dara Singh in S.T. No. 32 of 2000 and another S.T.No. 33/2000 both having arisen under the jurisdiction of Mayurbhanj Sessions Court, he is required to be taken to and fro to Bhubaneswar from Mayurbhanj on each date of trial. The contention of the learned counsel Sri Shyamananda Mohapatra is that in the interest of justice the present case ought to have been tried by the Court of Sessions at Keonjhar. Therefore, he has persuaded this Court to issue directions to the C.B.I, to prepare a detail plan of the place of occurrence showing the exact positions of the house, road and notable structures so that trial can be effectively adjudicated. That apart, he has sought for a direction to transfer the present Sessions case (S.T. No. 161/99) to the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj or Keonjhar for more effective and speedy disposal of the case.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Sanjit Mohanty, appearing for the C.B.I. has contended that a revision against the interlocutory order is clearly prohibited for the ratio reported in *1997 (13) O.C.R. (SC) 41 (Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishna Veni and Anr.).
6. That apart, since the accused persons have no legal right to pray for preparation of detailed spot map of the place of occurrence, the Criminal Revision as well as the Crl. Misc. Case are liable to be rejected.
7. In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, I am called upon toe see how far the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda is justified in rejecting the petition under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C, the relevant provisions of which are quoted as below :
“Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. :
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and whereupon such investigation the Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub- section (2).”
8. The trial of the Sessions case in question is at the verge of closure for which law as contemplated under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. does not permit further investigation. Law is well settled in 1990 Cri.L.J. 456 (supra) to which the learned Sessions Judge has rightly referred. In the reported case question arose whether the accused has a right to get further investigation ordered through the Magistrate’s Court under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. In the reported case, it has been held that Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is only permissive in character. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. shows that even after filing of a charge sheet, the Investigating Officer may undertake a further investigation of the case. If he does so. the further evidence collected by him shall be forwarded to the Magistrate along with a further report. This shows that neither the prosecution i.e. the informant nor the accused can claim as a matter of right, a direction from a Court commanding further investigation by the Investigating Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. after a charge sheet was filed after investigation. In the Allahabad case {supra) the following view has also been taken :
“Even for investigation there must be a point of finality is yet another reason for conclusion. Law expects discharge of duties by the I.O. properly resulting in a report under Section 173(2). It may only be in some exceptional cases whether the I.O. may have to collect some further evidence/ materials and submit it to the Magistrate along with his further report. Such an exceptional case will only prove the general rule that normally investigations terminate with the filing of the charge sheet in Court.”
9. The learned counsel Shri Mohanty has also contended that the order dated 5.9.2001 was passed on an application filed by four accused persons namely, Rajat, Hanish, Mahadev and Turam under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. for directing the C.B.I, for further investigation for preparing and providing the plan of the scene of occurrence and stay further proceeding whereas the present revision as well as the Crl. Misc. Case No. 9676/ 2001 have been filed by 14 accused persons challenging the impugned order and that being so, they are not maintainable as no prayer was made by the rest of the ten accused persons in the Court below. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to 1971 Crl.L.J. 165 (Vol. 77 CN 54) (Himatlal Ratilal Rajyagor v. State of Gujarat and Ors.) wherein the following view has been taken’:
“A revision against an order dismissing an application made by one of the accused, at the instance of other accused, who has not moved the Court in that regard is maintainable, though ordinarily liable to be rejected when the grievances set out by the accused-applicant are also the grievances of the other accused and the orde’r affect all of them. The High Court has power to consider the correctness or otherwise of any such order passed in any matter affecting all the accused in the case.”
10. In view of the above ruling of Gujarat High Court the contentions raised by the learned counsel Shri Mohanty for the C.B.I. has no force of law. However, he has left no stone unturned in challenging the revision, which according to him, is not maintainable being preferred against an interlocutory order, in support of which he has relied on 1987 (13) O.C.R. (SC) 41 (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as follows :
“Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code a person-accused/complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motupower under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So when the High Court on examination of records finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice, or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensure. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of the proceedings. The object of criminal is to render justice to punish the criminal trial and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witnesses fade out, The recent trend is to delay the trial and to threaten the witnesses or to win over the witnesses by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curved and public justice can be ensured only when trial is concluded expeditiously.”
11. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. has contended that the accused persons have made a prayer before the learned Sessions Judge solely with the purpose of protracting and delaying the trial on some plea or other. He has drawn my attention to the fact of declining to cross-examine P.W. 16 (Dr.Bhramara Padhan), Assistant Director, State F.S.L., Bhubaneswar. His contention is that had there been any sincerity in their grievance certainly they would not have declined to cross-examine P.W. 16. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. seems to be quite reasonable.
12. Shri Shyamananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Amin, who has been examined as P.W.8. has stated to have prepared another detailed spot map, which is not in the record, to which the learned counsel for the C.B.I, refuted saying that nowhere in his deposition the said Amin has stated to have prepared a detailed spot map. Now the bone of contention raised before this Court is, in view of the discrepancies in the spot map/plan prepared by the Amin whether direction can be issued to the C.B.I, for further investigation for preparing the detailed spot map. I have already pointed out that neither the informant nor the accused can claim further investigation as of right after charge sheet is filed. In such view of the matter, if there is any discrepancy in the spot map or plan prepared by the Amin, it is open to the defence to lead contrary evidence on that score by examining defence witness. Further more, the accused persons have prayed for transfer of the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar for trial. Such a prayer is beyond the scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as there is specific provisions under Section 407, Cr.P.C. for transfer of cases. That being so, the prayer for transfer of the case at this stage when the trial is likely to be concluded or almost closed, is not at all entertainable.
13. In the ultimate result, in view of what has been discussed above, the Criminal Revision as well as the Criminal Misc. Case being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.