1 WP No.889/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 889 OF 2010 Sachin Uttam Yetal ...Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State. 2 The petitioner is challenging order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadegaon, dated 28th October, 2009. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the PSI of Chinchni-Wangi Police Station to reinvestigate the offence regarding the seizure of clothes and also 2 WP No.889/2010 directed him to analyse the blood, if any, found on these clothes. 3 Grievance of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of the witnesses properly and has also not conducted the investigation in a proper and fair manner. It is submitted that as a result of lacunas in the said investigation, the accused are likely to be benefited in the said trial. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the police to again record the statements of the witnesses. He invited my attention to the statements of the father and mother of the complainant. He submitted that some alterations have been made in the said statements regarding time and date when the said incident took place. He submitted that some discrepancies are found in the statements of the complainant, his father and his mother. He submitted that these discrepancies will benefit the accused at the time of the trial. 3 WP No.889/2010 4 The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Magistrate has considered the said application and has given cogent reasons while rejecting the application for reinvestigation of the entire case. 5 In my view, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The apprehension of the applicant that on account of the discrepancies the accused may be benefited, is clearly without any basis. At the time of the trial, the witness can point out the correct facts and explain the discrepancy, if found, in the said statement. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6 Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)