MAVJIBHAI KARSANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by accused facing criminal trial before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.162 of 1997. The petitioners in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No.2696 of 2000 are co-accused to the present revisioners. The revisioners are aggrieved by an order passed by learned Additional City Sessions judge, Court No.10, on the 18/05/2000, allowing application Ex.13 before him in the said Sessions Case, praying for a direction for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the investigating agency. The said application, Ex.13, was tendered by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, stating that deceased-Riddhiben Nareshbhai Patel was taken to Civil Hospital by Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Patel, where history was given that her mother sustained electric current while heating water with electric heater for bathing. However, the Panchnama of the place of incident is indicative of the fact that the deceased died of kerosene burns and not electric current. It is not the case that the fire started because of short circuit in the current and, therefore, further investigation was prayed for. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge, after considering the various aspects, allowed the application and directed the Investigation Officer to make further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two of the accused persons, on being aggrieved, have preferred this revision application to challenge the said order.

(2.) The revisioners are represented by learned Advocate, Mr. Kanabar. Learned Advocate, Mr. Kanabar, submitted that the revisioners assail the impugned order on the ground that the Sessions Court could not have ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance. It was also submitted that the power was exercised by the Sessions Court at the behest of the complainant, which is also not permitted. Mr. Kanabar submitted that this application is given only with a view causing harassment to the accused persons. The incident is of 2/03/1997 and, after such a long time, this application was moved. He submitted, therefore, that this revision may be allowed and the order in question may be set aside.

(3.) State of Gujarat is represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Desai. He submitted that, as per the law settled by this Court in Sarlaben Virsing Bamaniya and Another v. State of Gujarat & Another, 1989(1) GLH, 148 and Surendrabhai Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1985 GLH 299, investigation can be ordered under Section 173(8) even after taking cognizance.