1 3384.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3384 OF 2010 Dinkar Prabhu Mandve ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.V.V.Purwant for Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 2, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has not only challenged the order passed by the JMFC, Madha dated 5th June 2010 below report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.’) in C.R. No.226 of 2010 registered with Madha Police Station, Solapur but has also prayed for direction to transfer the further investigation in respect of the said case to another independent investigating agency. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Police had recorded inculpatory confessional statement of accused Angat Jagannath Gadekar and the interrogation in that regard is also recorded in the compact disc (CD). However, the said material collected during the investigation does not form part of the charge- sheet as already filed before the lower Court. 2 3384.10.sxw 2. It is further contended that the statements of neighbours recorded during the investigation have also not been included in the charge-sheet presented before the concerned Court. The fact that said statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer is not in dispute before us. That position is accepted by the Investigating Officer who is present in Court. The question is: is there any legal justification for non-inclusion of the said material in the charge-sheet? In our opinion, if the said statements were recorded during the investigation, the Investigating Officer ought to have made said statements part of the charge-sheet to be presented before the concerned Court. In the circumstances, the Petitioner ought to succeed to this limited extent. 3. Insofar as the relief claimed to transfer the further investigation to another independent investigating agency is concerned, that would not survive for consideration. As a matter of fact, the grievance of the Petitioner is not about improper investigation or deficiency in investigation but is limited to the fact that all the material collected during the investigation has not been made part of the record of the charge-sheet. That grievance has already been accepted in the earlier part of this order. 3 3384.10.sxw 4. As aforesaid, the Petition is disposed of on the basis of assurance given by the Investigating Officer through learned A.P.P. that the statements of Angat Jagannath Gadekar and that of the neighbours recorded during the investigation shall be produced before the Trial Court by way of further police report/supplementary charge-sheet. That be done expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate dated 5th June 2010 is set-aside. Instead, the report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. for accused Samadhan Gadekar will have to be reconsidered by the concerned Court afresh on its own merits after the further material comes on record by way of further police report/supplementary charge-sheet in terms of this decision. All question in that behalf are left open. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)