1 3683.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3683 OF 2010 Shri.Bhagvan @ Ganapat Devu Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Senior Inspector of Police Kankavli & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Vaibhav G.Bagade i/b Mr.Pradeep B.Sawant for Petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. Two reliefs have been claimed in this Petition. The first relief is to issue direction to the respondents to appoint new Investigating Officer attached to Kankavli Police Station for collecting documents and file the same along with the report before the concerned Court. Insofar as this relief is concerned, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the Petition suffers from laches qua this relief. Inasmuch as after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and thereafter the Court took cognizance of the case. Besides, even the trial has commenced and the prosecution has already examined two witnesses. We 2 3683.10 fail to understand as to why the petitioner participated in the said proceedings without any demur till this time. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has made any representation to any Authority about the improper investigation done by the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, insofar as relief (a) is concerned, the same cannot be granted as the same suffers from laches. 3. The other relief claimed in the Petition is to issue direction to the respondents to produce certain documents referred to in the said prayer clause. It is fairly accepted by the petitioner that the petitioner had filed application before the Trial Court for this very relief which, however, came to be rejected on 1st October, 2010. If so, the petitioner will have to challenge the said order which has not been done in the present Petition. If the petitioner were to challenge the said order alone, the Petition would be one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would carry out necessary amendment to convert this Petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution and also ask for further reliefs to challenge the order passed below Exhibit 11 in regular Criminal case No.16 of 2009 dated 1st October, 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Kankavli. 3 3683.10 4. The above amendment be carried out within two weeks from today, failing which, Petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. 5. If the amendment is carried out, Petition shall proceed before the learned Single Judge being one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India confined to relief (b) and the proposed further relief to challenge the order dated 1st October, 2010. 6. Subject to above, Office to process the matter and place the same before appropriate Bench. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)