MOIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the order dated 15-9-1988 passed by the Special Judge, Barabanki, recalling his order dated 12-8-1988 and fixing a date to proceed with the sessions trial.

(2.) A charge sheet for offences under Sections 8/18/21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was submitted against the revisionists by the Station Officer of P. S. Zaidpur on 2-3-1988 whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 8-4-1988. The sessions trial is pending before the Special Judge, Barabanki. On 10-5-1988 the Special Judge framed charges against all the accused and fixed 1-6-1988 for evidence It appears that the case could not be taken up on 1-6-1988 and it was adjourned to 12-8-1988 on that date an application was moved on the allegation that the State Government vide its order dated 30-4-1988 has entrusted the matter for further investigation to CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh and permission for further investigation under section 173 (8) CrPC may be given. Learned Special Judge on that application passed the following order :- "Heard L. C. for State. In the interest of justice the application is allowed " By,a separate order learned Special Judge adjourned the hearing of the case to 14-9-1988. From the impugned order it appears that none appeared on that date on behalf of CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh to intimate that court what was the stage of investigation. The application on behalf of the accused-revisionists had, however, been moved for dropping the proceedings till the report of CB CID, Uttar Pradesh is received. This application was opposed on behalf of the State. The State Counsel insisted that the prosecution witnesses were present and their statements may be recorded. The learned Special Judge rejected the application moved on behalf of the accused observing that none was present on behalf of the CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh to inform about the Stale and result of further investigation and thus the CB, CID Uttar Pradesh was interested in postponement of the hearing of the case the learned Special Judge, therefore, recalled the order dated 12-8-1988 and directed the prosecution to give its evidence on the next date fixed i. e. 1-10-1988. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the accused have filed the present revision.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the learned Special Judge had permitted the CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh for further investigation, there was no justification for recalling that order because no unreasonable delay has occurred in submission of the report by the CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh. There is much force in this contention. From the facts disclosed in the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavits it is evident that the contention of the accused was that they have been falsely implicated in the case and on their representation the State Government entrusted the matter for further investigation to CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh, vide its order dated 20-4-1988. The CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh had conducted the checkup and when found that it is a fit case for further investigation the CB, CID, Inspector moved an application on 12-8-1988 for permission of the Special Judge for further investigation. IT has been held in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 CrLJ 1346-(Supreme Court) that further investigation by police can be made even when cognizance for the offence had been taken. IT has been further observed in this connection at page 1357 :-