1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 271 /2007
1) Pravin s/o Manikrao Naik
Aged about 39 years, occu: Business
2) Manikrao s/o Anandrao Naik
Aged about 64 years, occu: NIL
Both R/po shivaji Ward,
Ppusad Tah.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
v e r s u s
..APPLICANTS
1) The State of Maharashtra
(Through Gramin Police Station)
Pusad Tah.Pusad Dist. Yavatmal.
2) Sk.Sattar s/o Sk. Hanif,
Aged about 42 years, occu: Agril
R/o Dhansal Tq.Pusad Dist.'Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
............................................................................................................................
Mr. R.R.Prajapati, Adv.h/for Shri S.D.Chopde, Advocate for applicants
Mrs. A R Taywade, APP for Respondent No.1
Mr J B Kasat Adv. For Respondent No.2
.......................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE , J.
DATEd: 5 December, 2011
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The revision-applicants question the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 64/2005 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:45 ::: 2 whereby on the basis of application by the complainant (first informant ) Sk. Sattar Sk. Hanif the impugned order was passed. The first informant applied to the learned trial Judge that he had lodged a complaint against as many as 98 persons naming them in the complaint, but for the reasons best known to the police they decided to pick and choose and charge-sheeted only 62 persons. Thus, according to complainant, all 98 persons named in the FIR ought to have been prosecuted as the complaint is self-explanatory; but the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge who heard the application, observed that names of all the accused though disclosed were not charge-sheeted without any reason. According to learned trial Judge the Investigating officer is answerable and for just and proper decision of the case it is necessary to add all the accused named by the first informant in the FIR.
2. According to the learned Advocate for the revision applicants, the investigation had followed the FIR and during the course of investigation, no case was disclosed against this applicants, therefore they were deleted from the charge-sheet. It is submitted that there is no evidence available against them during the course of investigation.
The applicants also sought to defend the proceedings by pleading alibi ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:45 ::: 3 and non-liability for the crime in question which is of course allegedly committed. Be that as it may, when the first informant specifically named 98 persons in the FIR, the police could not have omitted those persons named in the FIR as police for themselves cannot have sweet will to decide as to who should be discharged from the case or not to be charge-sheeted, without approval of the Court concerned. The police have duty to place entire material collected during the course of investigation along with the complaint/FIR, statement of witnesses, documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation etc. before the competent Criminal Court in the form of final report/ charge-
sheet and it must be left to the Court concerned to decide as to whether any person though named in the FIR can be discharged or not.
It is open to those who are summoned on the ground that their names were included in the FIR but no material was collected against them in the course of investigation to apply for discharge in accordance with law. In view of these observations, the impugned order appears correct, according to law and need not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence Revision Application is dismissed. R & P be sent back forthwith.
JUDGE Sahare ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:45 :::