AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ashok Kumar, J.—The petitioners are A1 to A3 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Court of Kanyakumari
District at Nagerkoil and were prosecuted for the alleged offences under sections 147, 508, 506, 366, 376. 376 r/w 511, 302, 201 & 312,
120(B) IPC., In the above case, all the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the stage of the case is questioning the
accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. At this stage, the
petitioners have filed an application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation of Crime
No.917 of 1997 of Kuzhithurai Police Station which has culminated as S.C. No. 25 of 1998. A perusal of the petition filed before the learned
Sessions Judge would show that even the above crime number has not been mentioned. However, it may be presumed that the petitioners wanted
further investigation of the same case which is now pending trial as S.C.No.25 of 1988 as mentioned earlier.
The petitioners have filed several applications before this court on one reason or other and all those applications have already been disposed of
and five times it has been directed that the Trial Court should complete the trial at the earliest and even time limit was fixed by this court. But, the
petitioners are successful in dragging on the proceedings by filing one petition or the other.
As per the provisions of Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C., when the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary in
the case in which already he has filed a final report, he may apply to the concerned Magistrate for permission for further investigation and on such
permission, the Magistrate may pass an order for further investigation. But locus standi of the accused for further investigation that too, at the final
stage of the trial is totally ruled out. The accused were silent all along about the final report filed by the investigation officer though they agitated the
case as false implication which was the reason for registering another case by the CBCID as per the directions of the First Division Bench of this
High Court. This court has also come to the aid of the petitioner by way of allowing an application to send for the documents in Crime No. 2/2002
of CBCID for the purpose of enabling the accused to cross examine the witnesses with regard to the fact whether they were arrested on a
particular day as claimed by the police or one day earlier as claimed by the accused. In the above order also, the trial court was required to
conduct the trial expeditiously and dispose of the proceedings. Only at the stage of questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have now filed this
petition only with a view to drag on the proceedings. The petitioners have no locus standi or any reason to file such an application u/s 173(8) of
Cr.P.C., and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the revision is liable to be
dismissed.
Accordingly the revision is dismissed. Consequently connected Crl.M.P.is closed. Learned District &Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of
the case within this month.