GANESAN Vs. SHO, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/4/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, in CMP.No.951 of 2021 in C.C.No.220 of 2020, whereby the application filed for further investigation on behalf of the prosecution under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C., was rejected by the Trial Court.

(2.) The gist of the allegation in this case against the accused is that making a false promise to get a job as Assistant Engineer in the TNEB the accused had obtained money from the defacto complainant and cheated him. By directing the de-facto complainant to come to various places to hand over the amount, payments of money in cash were accepted by the accused. On 28/7/2018, a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs, was given at Woodlands Hotel at Villupuram. On 29/7/2018, a further sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs was given at Elles Chathram Road corner. Another sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was given on 9/8/2018 at Appollo Medical Shop situated at Trichy to Chennai Road in Villupuram, a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs was given on 7/9/2018, at Avin Milk Shop situated at Villupuram District Collector office and a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 was given on 14/11/2018, near the Central Co-operative Bank. In the places mentioned in the complaint by the de-facto complainant, the CCTV footages were not collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. This apart the accused had also contacted the defacto complainant in his mobile No.9443152542 to 9894298278 and the CDR particulars were not collected during the course of investigation. Further, in respect to certain documents produced along with the final report certificates as required under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act were not furnished. Therefore, for conducting further investigation and bringing all these materials on record and the application was filed on behalf of the prosecution. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by passing the following order :-

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that firstly, the reasoning that the application is filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on his own is factually incorrect and it is filed on the instructions of the respondent/Police. The second reasoning that the trial has already commenced and the petition need not to be entertained is fallacious. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors,AIR 1999 SC 2267, wherein in paragraph No.2 it was held as follows:-