MOHD. DANISH ABDUL TALIB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The AccusedApplicant Has Put To Challenge Order Dated 15.01.2015 passed by Ad hoc District Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.42/2011 below Exh.45 by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said application purported to be under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C.

(3.) It is not in dispute that in respect of the offence complained of namely; under Sections 306, 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed before the competent Court in the year 2010 itself. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court since the offences were triable by Sessions Court. Thereafter, the trial begun. Then the Investigating Officer as well as the Public Prosecutor realized that though the mobile phone along with its chip were seized, through inadvertence or as the case may be, the said chip was not sent for scientific investigation so as to bring additional piece of evidence for the prosecution. Since the chargesheet came to be filed, the application Exh.45, under Section 173A of the Cr. P. C. was, therefore, filed for direction before the Sessions Court for further investigation. The application was opposed and was ultimately allowed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order.