SUMIT KARAN SINGH GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioners challenge the order dtd. 09/09/2024, wherein, the application filed by the prosecution for seeking permission to file additional charge-sheet on record is allowed and the permission is granted to submit supplementary charge-sheet on record.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that the Investigating Officer has not sought permission / leave from the learned Magistrate for conducting the further investigation. He further submits that there is no material against the petitioners to connect them with the crime. Even if the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of the informant is taken into consideration, the same does not demonstrate that there is an overt act on the part of petitioners. The original charge-sheet was filed on 12/01/2022, however, the statement dtd. 12/01/2022 of Rahul Pandurang Deshpande, who is the informant is not filed on record alongwith original charge-sheet. It was submitted that with mala fide intention, the Investigating Officer has implicated the present petitioners in the crime. Lastly, he relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi VS Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, to submit that if the leave is not sought from the learned Magistrate, then the supplementary charge-sheet would not be maintainable, and accordingly, he prayed to quash and set aside the order dtd. 09/09/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara.