FR JOHN JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A1 to A3 in Sessions Case No.25 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Court of Kanyakumari District at Nagerkoil and were prosecuted for the alleged offences under sections 147, 508, 506, 366, 376. 376 r/w 511, 302, 201 & 312, 120(B) IPC., In the above case, all the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the stage of the case is questioning the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. At this stage, the petitioners have filed an application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation of Crime No.917 of 1997 of Kuzhithurai Police Station which has culminated as S.C.No.25 of 1998. A perusal of the petition filed before the learned Sessions Judge would show that even the above crime number has not been mentioned. However, it may be presumed that the petitioners wanted further investigation of the same case which is now pending trial as S.C.No.25 of 1988 as mentioned earlier.

(2.) The petitioners have filed several applications before this court on one reason or other and all those applications have already been disposed of and five times it has been directed that the Trial Court should complete the trial at the earliest and even time limit was fixed by this court. But, the petitioners are successful in dragging on the proceedings by filing one petition or the other.

(3.) As per the provisions of Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., when the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary in the case in which already he has filed a final report, he may apply to the concerned Magistrate for permission for further investigation and on such permission, the Magistrate may pass an order for further investigation. But locus standi of the accused for further investigation that too, at the final stage of the trial is totally ruled out. The accused were silent all along about the final report filed by the investigation officer though they agitated the case as false implication which was the reason for registering another case by the CBCID as per the directions of the First Division Bench of this High Court. This court has also come to the aid of the petitioner by way of allowing an application to send for the documents in Crime No.2/2002 of CBCID for the purpose of enabling the accused to cross examine the witnesses with regard to the fact whether they were arrested on a particular day as claimed by the police or one day earlier as claimed by the accused. In the above order also, the trial court was required to conduct the trial expeditiously and dispose of the proceedings. Only at the stage of questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have now filed this petition only with a view to drag on the proceedings. The petitioners have no locus standi or any reason to file such an application under Section173(8) of Cr.P.C., and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.