- (1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 10-7-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Andamans allowing one protest petition filed by Mt. Leela Das, widow of deceased Swapan Kumar Das, directing further investigation of the case by a competent officer of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.
(2.) I have heard the extensive submissions of Mr. Hazra, the learned Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the revisionist petitioner and also Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party, de facto complainant. It transpires that the revisionist petitioner wants to challenge the order impugned on three-fold grounds, namely :-(1) that the order impugned is not a speaking order as it fails to give any indication, why the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the authority to investigate the case further. It has been further contended that the order impugned fails to indicate the precise reason for ordering further investigation. Secondly, it is urged that since, charge-sheet against one of the accused was submitted, on the basis of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to Court of Sessions under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate was not in seizing of the matter and, therefore, he cannot direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to further investigate into the case. Thirdly, it is urged that once cognizance has been taken in the instant case, the Magistrate should not be allowed to go back to pre-cognizance stage of the case in order to direct the police to further investigate under S. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the opposite party, on the other hand, has submitted that the order impugned is a speaking order wherein the learned Magistrate assigned sufficient reasons for the ultimate direction given to the authority in connection with the further investigation of the case. In this connection, the learned Advocate relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Kamala Pati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 777 : (1979 Cri LJ 679) has contended that the learned Magistrate here has discharged his duties in his executive capacity and, therefore, it would be sufficient if it is seen that the learned Magistrate formed his opinion after going through the case diary and other necessary papers. Relying (Regarding) the second contention as above, the learned Advocate has argued that since the order was passed under S. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate is competent to pass such a direction upon the investigating authority. Regarding the third point taken here it is the contention of the learned Advocate that when the revisionist petitioner, Central Bureau of Investigation filed an application before the Magistrate for further investigation and when afterwards submitted final report in connection with the further investigation, that investigation being done following provisions contained in S. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the other provisions of S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely clause (2) to (6) of the said Section would be applicable in the instant case mutatis mutandis and, therefore, there would be no bar created for the Magistrate to direct further investigation or for the police to submit a report in final form following such investigation.;