Hargovind and others vs State of M.P.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

Shri Pradeep Katare, Counsel for the revisionists.

Shri P.D. Agarwal, Government Advocate, for the respondent-State.

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists.

Perused the record.

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5-2-2001 the report of the Superintendent of Police, district Bhind, has been submitted.

The aforesaid report has also been perused.

The accused-applicants feel aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge (Dacoity), district Bhind, dated 1-1-2001 whereunder on perusal of the evidence and material brought on record the Special Judge had declined to accept the final report submitted by the police, the Investigating Agency, and had directed for proceeding further in accordance with law and submit the charge-sheet.

A perusal of the report of the Superintendent of Police indicates that the Investigating Officer, Shri Vishav Deep Singh Parihar, had during the investigation recorded the statement of Krishna Mohan Sharma on 22-10-2000. The aforesaid witness had revealed that on 20-10-2000 when he was returning from his fields at about 10.00 P.M., he saw 8 to 10 armed persons sitting in Munna Jatav''s field where a lantern was giving light. He along with two other witnesses, namely, Ramhet Sharma and Jagdish, heard their talks and identified them as members of the gang of dacoit Nirbhaya Singh Gurjar. He had seen Munna Jatav, Shyamlal Jatav (present applicant No. 2), Deendayal Jatav (present applicant No. 3) and Govind Sharma (present applicant No. 1), who were providing food, water and Bidi etc. to all the dacoits. The witness Ramhet Sharma and Jagdish had confirmed the same thing in their statements. It appears that special Judge after going through the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and also examining the Investigating Officer himself had come to the conclusion that the final report was not liable to be accepted.

The learned counsel for the applicants has urged drawing support from the observations made in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra, , that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report u/s 169 of the Code, that no case was made out for sending up an accused for trial. In its aforesaid decision, it may be noticed, the Apex Court had observed that if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation, who may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, u/s 190(l)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report.

In the present case what I find is that the Special Judge had directed the police to proceed further in accordance with law and then submit a charge-sheet. In the circumstances, it was open to the police after further investigation to submit a final report instead of charge-sheet. The Superintendent of Police in his report has indicated that after passing of the impugned order dated 1-1-2001 instead of submitting a final report a charge-sheet was submitted on 4-1-2001.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case the decision sought to be relied upon by the applicants cannot come to their rescue. It is stated that the trial is proceeding.

Taking into consideration what has been noticed hereinabove no justifiable ground is made out for any interference by this Court.

This revision is accordingly dismissed.