RAM KRUSHNA PADHIARY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer of petition not to summon or examine witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet having been turned down by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in S.C. Nos. 273 and 274 of 1991, this revision application has been filed. The proceedings have a cheque Career. At various stages this Court was approached on several occasion.

(2.) A brief reference to factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the application. On the basis of FIR lodged at Jeypore Town P.S. two GR cases were instituted in relation to accusations punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC). After completion of investigation charge-sheets were submitted on 24/7/1991 against the petitioner and another. The cases were committed to the Court of Session. While the cases were pending, further investigation was undertaken and supplementary charge- sheets along with case diary were submitted by police. Summons were issued to the witnesses named in the charge-sheets for examination during trial. Petitioners stand was that there was no scope for further investigation, and in any event witnesses who are available to be examined were not examined earlier and prosecution has not thrown any light as to under what circumstances further investigation was necessary. Placing reliance on provisions of Sec. 173 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code), learned Sessions Judge held that there was scope for further investigation. Supplementary charge-sheets were submitted on 21-4-1992, accepted by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore, and copies were supplied to the accused on 2-5-1992. Supplementary charge-sheets were received by learned Sessions Judge on 5-6-1992 and on consideration of charge-sheets originally submitted and supplementary charge-sheets, charge was framed on 7 -5-1992. Order relating to framing of charge was assailed before this Court, but without any success. Charge was framed under Sees. 302, 364 read with Sec. 34, IPC against petitioner and another. Petitioner urged before learned Sessions Judge that resort to Sec. 311 of the Code was uncalled for. This plea did not find acceptance by learned Sessions Judge on the ground that Sec. 311 of the Code had no application at all, and further investigation by prosecution was supportable under Sec. 173 (8) of the Code.

(3.) Mr. H. S. Mishra for the petitioner submitted that further investigation without permission of Court is illegal and learned Sessions Judge should not have brought the case within the ambit of Section 173 (8) of the Code. It is also submitted that no explanation has been offered by prosecution as to why witnesses subsequently indicated in the charge-sheet were not examined earlier by investigating agency and as to under what circumstances further investigation was felt necessary. Mr. N. Prusty for State on the other hand contended that Section 173 (8) of the Code has been rightly applied by learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that absence of prior permission does not invalidate the subsequent investigation.