PARAMBATH BABU POKKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in a prosecution initiated, inter alia, under Sections 452, 354 and 392 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Trial had commenced and all the cited witnesses were examined. At that stage, it would appear, that the Investigating Officer realised that certain witnesses had not been cited in the final report and certain documents have not been produced. He therefore filed an application, Annex.2, to permit him to conduct further investigation to cure those defects.

(2.) The application was opposed and Annex.3 counter statement was filed. It is thereupon that the learned Magistrate passed Annex.4 order. By Annex.4 order the prayer for further investigation was allowed and the Investigating Officer was directed

(3.) The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that belated further investigation ought not to have been permitted. She further complains that Annex.5 further report filed by the Investigating Officer is filed in the form of another final report. This is incorrect, it is urged.