DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition in revision has been preferred against the order dated 3 1.8.1995. passed by Shri P.Y. Namjoshi, Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby he allowed the application purporting to be under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directed the C.B.I. to make further investigation. It raises a short but interesting question of law.

(2.) THE point involved is as to whether further investigation could be ordered by the learned Sessions Judge after framing of charge.

(3.) 1995 CrLJ 918) and argued that in that case it has heen laid down by the Gujrat High Court that Subordinate Courts cannot entrust investigation to any authority except referred to in section 156 CrPC. A reference has also been made to Saroja's case (supra). The next contention of the learned counsel is that the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 1323 (Kashmiri Devi v. Delhi (Administration) referred to by the learned Sessions Judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case the charge had not been framed and the directions were given by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court under its extraordinary powers, which are not invested in the Subordinate Courts. On the other hand, it has been contended that the learned Sessions Judge has given satisfactory ground for coming to the conclusion that the case required re -investigation on the points mentioned in the order itself. The contention that no re -investigation can be ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct.