RAJUL BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) The instant revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 25.5.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2, Maharajganj in Criminal Misc. Case No. 73 of 2017 (State v. Jagdish Mall and others) by which the protest application dated 17.1.2017 filed by the revisionist under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned judgement and order passed by the court below is arbitrary, unsustainable and without application of mind. The main grounds of the revisionist is that the police has illegally exonerated the accused in section 395 IPC and section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act during investigation. The Investigating Officer did not record the statement of certain witnesses, who had submitted their affidavits to the S.S.P. during investigation, therefore, it warranted further investigation of the case under section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973;