(1.) Heard Mr. S. K. Bagga, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State.
(2.) The present Criminal Revision Application is filed challenging the order dtd. 2/4/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.376 of 2014 below application Exh.6 rejecting the said application preferred by the applicants herein under Sec. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short) for further investigation in respect of the offence alleged against the present applicants. After proceeding with the submissions, learned advocate for the applicants, producing an affidavit affirmed by himself, has submitted that as such, all the applicants-original accused are in judicial custody and therefore, he, upon instructions received from one Mr. Rakesh Mulchand Dayani, who is nephew of present applicant No.1-original accused No.1, has filed this affidavit and now he is restricting his submissions so far as point/ground No.7 of the application at Exh.6 is concerned and right now, he does not press the present Criminal Revision Application for other grounds of further investigation which has been sought by the applicants in the application at Exh.6 and sought liberty to file an application in accordance with law as and when need arises during the stage of defense of the accused for rest of the points/grounds. In light of the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards the observation made on page 5 of the impugned order more particularly line Nos.4, 5 and 6 which reads as under:
(3.) Learned APP has submitted that when the prayer has been restricted so far as point/ground No.7 of the application at Exh.6 is concerned, as narrated in the affidavit dtd. 3/5/2016, he has no objection if this Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed so far as point/ground No.7 of application Exh.6 is concerned.