S SUSEELA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is the admitted case that only on the petition filed bya2 for re-investigation and that on the same day, he withdrew the petition since the Investigating Officer has filed another petition under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P. C. for re-investigation and after re-investigation only the Investigating Officer has examined 30 witnesses who have already been examined by him at the time of filing of First Information report in this case.

(2.) WHEN the matter is taken up for hearing on 21. 2. 2007,the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the only allegation is that these petitioners were present in the room of the Finance Company at the time, when the amount was deposited with A2 and that the receipt for the deposited amount by the depositors were also issued only by A3,bhgayalakshmi, the wife of A2. At this juncture, the learned additional Public Prosecutor would represent that he will produce the copy of the petition filed by the Investigating Officer as well as A2, before the trial court under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P. C. to enable this Court to know on what ground those applications were filed. Unless those applications are perused, we cannot come to a conclusion whether there is prima facie case alleged against these petitioners. For production of a copy of applications filed by the investigating Officer under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P. C. by the petition was adjourned to to-day.

(3.) NOW at this stage, we cannot take the powers of the trial Court and relieve these petitioners 1 to 3 on the ground that there is no prima facie material against them to proceed with the charges levelled against them. But as far as the 4th petitioner is concerned, admittedly, he is not a partner in Shanmuga Finance as seen from Form A under the Registration Act.