K.L. Sharma, J. - (1.) -This is a revision directed against the order dated 4.3.1992 passed by the Special Judge, (EC Act), Ballia in EC Act case No. 8 of 1991 State v. Suresh Chand whereby he rejected the final report and directed the investigating officer to reinvestigate and directed the S.H.O. to appoint another investigating officer for reinvestigation in the matter.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment and order.
(3.) The sole ground for directing reinvestigation is that the investigating officer did not arrest the accused who had not surrendered. He has smelt some ulterior motive on the part of the investigating officer as to how and under what circumstances the statement of the accused was recorded when he was not in custody. I am unable to appreciate this reasoning of the learned Judge. The arrest of an accused is made only when it is essential for the purpose of the investigation. The statement of an accused can be recorded by calling him to the police station or at his own residence which may be visited by the investigating officer. However, the direction for re-investigation is not supported by any other reason or material which requires the change of investigating officer and reinvestigation by new investigating officer in the matter. Had there been some reason requiring reinvestigation or further investigation this court could not have interfered with t1 impugned order. But the learned Judge has rejected the final report only for the sole reason that the accused was not arrested and his statement was recorded when he was not in custody. Therefore, such an impugned order for the given reason can not he sustained.;