SUJAN SUTRADHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
AKIL KURESHI,CJ. -
(1.)This petition is filed by the original accused to challenge an order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No.PRC(WP) 1172017.
(2.)Brief sequence of events may be noted:
On 21.12.2016 police had filed an information report alleging offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against unnamed persons. Father of one Biswajit Debnath, claiming to be victim of the said incident filed a cross F.I.R. on 22.12.2016 in which the petitioner along with two others were named as accused persons. During the course of the trial, 12(twelve) witnesses were examined. On behalf of the victim, an application was moved on 16.05.2018 for summoning 4(four) witnesses not named in the chargesheet. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 16.05.2018. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency thereafter submitted a supplementary chargesheet dated 18.07.2018 under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C., for short). The learned Magistrate did not accept such supplementary chargesheet by passing an order on 19.01.2019. On 28.02.2019 the investigating agency moved an application before the learned Magistrate for permitting further investigation. On this application, the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that it is always open for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation and present a supplementary chargesheet for which no permission of the Court is needed. Further even the Judicial Magistrate during the course of the trial can order further investigation. On such grounds in the impugned order the learned Magistrate passed the following order:
"Considering the same the prayer for further investigation is allowed and OC East Agartala PS is directed to submit the report in the proper form and not merely the statement of the witnesses after conducting further investigation by himself or designated police officer under him.
Fix 100619 for report by OC East Agartala PS. "
(3.)Appearing for the petitioner original accused learned counsel Mr. D.J. Saha submitted that in fact of the present case the Magistrate ought not to have exercised the powers for permitting further investigation. These are the very 4(four) witnesses whom the victim wanted to examine for which purpose application for summoning the witness was filed but rejected by the Magistrate. The attempt on the part of the investigating agency to file a supplementary chargesheet including statements of these witnesses which were subsequently recorded was also not permitted by the Magistrate. These orders are brought to a naught by allowing the subsequent application of the investigating agency by the impugned order. He submitted that there are no valid grounds shown why statements of these so called eye witnesses were not previously recorded.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.