Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/727/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 727 of 2006
======================================
NAGJI
KADVAJI BALAT
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
VH KANARA for Applicant,MR MADHUSUDAN RATHOD for Applicant.
MR
KARTIK PANDYA, APP for
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 18/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has moved this Court under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Criminal Procedure Code upon rejection of his application
Exh.85 in Special Case No.7 of 1997 by impugned order dated 30th
August 2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The
petitioner is facing the trial for offences punishable under Sections
7, 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he
had made the application at Exh.85, at the fag end of trial, for
ordering further investigation under the provisions of Sub-section
(8) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. It
was argued before learned Special Judge and reiterated before this
Court that since the original complainant had complained about demand
of additional sum of Rs.50/- for releasing the vehicle of the
complainant and that police officer was not joined as an accused
person the petitioner was prejudiced in his defence; and further
investigation was required to be carried out for identifying the
officer, who has alleged to have instructed the complainant to pay
additional sum on the next date. It was further submitted by learned
counsel, Mr.Kanara, that the particular officer having been
identified only after deposition of the investigating officer on
29.4.2006, the petitioner’s application could not be treated as
deliberately delayed.
3. As
against that learned APP, Mr.Kartik Pandya, supported the impugned
order and pointed out the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case in which further investigation could serve no purpose at all.
It was clear from the facts stated in the impugned order that the
charge sheet against the petitioner was filed in the year 1999 and
the case against the petitioner could have been gathered from the
papers of the charge sheet. Thereafter the original complainant had
passed away even before his deposition could be recorded in the
criminal case. Then there remained no evidence about identity of any
police officer, who was alleged to have instructed the complainant to
pay additional sum on the next date for releasing his vehicle. Thus,
in short the trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that
further investigation was unlikely to serve any purpose.
4. Learned
counsel, Mr.Kanara, however, relied upon judgment of this Court in
Valiben, W/o. Vitthalbhai Narsinhbhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat [2006 (2) GLH
354] to
submit that it was the bounden duty of the investigating agency to
collect such material and place it on record as may be essential for
finding the truth in the case. He also relied upon recent judgment
of the Supreme Court in Manoj Narain Agrawal v.
Shashi Agrawal etc.
[2009 (2) GLH 782]
to submit that further investigation can be directed under Section
173 (8) even after an order taking cognizance and at any stage.
However, as seen earlier and as discussed in the impugned order,
further investigation was unlikely to serve any purpose and the
essential material for finding the truth in the case was already
placed before the Court. Therefore, the application of the
petitioner appears to be an attempt at delaying the conclusion of
trial and to identify and bring in one more accused person, which
could not be said to be in furtherance of defence of the petitioner.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, neither any
illegality nor any impropriety could be found in the impugned order
and accordingly present application is dismissed. Rule is discharged
and interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top