AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2043 OF 2006 Bastyav Jaki Pinto & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Amit Sale for the applicants. Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor with Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Public Interest Litigation No.173 of 2004 was filed, inter alia, praying that Special Investigation Team of senior officers should be constituted to investigate the scam of Bhudargad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Gargoti, District Kolhapur. According to the petitioners the accused are involved in various fictitious loan AJN 2 transactions. It is the petitioners' case that though number of persons are in possession of the stolen property, they have not been made accused under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for receiving stolen property. 2. On 11/7/2007, the First Court passed a speaking order and gave some directions to the investigating agency. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order need to be quoted. “3. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the investigation has not been finally concluded and further investigation is still pending. He further states that the State Authority would do their best to complete the investigation expeditiously and ensure that no person guilty of an offence is protected and all are brought to book in accordance with law. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping these two petitions pending in this court. Accordingly, we dispose of both the petitions with a direction that the respondent – State shall abide by its statement and would complete investigation within six months from today. The averments made in the writ petition, particularly in relation to fictitious loans and action against the receivers of the stolen property shall be specifically looked into by the investigating agency.” AJN 3 3. It appears that on that day, inadvertently, the court was not informed that the investigation was complete and charge-sheet had already been filed. The State, therefore, moved the court for modification of order dated 11/7/2007. On 26/10/2007, the First Court passed the following order : “The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the investigation in the case has been completed. However, the statement was made under some bonafide mistaken impression. Now, it is stated that the investigation is complete. Let copy of the final report be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing.” 4. As directed by this court by its order dated 26/10/2007, copy of the charge-sheet was filed in this court by the State. On 2/7/2008, Criminal Application No.268 of 2007 was disposed of in view of the statement made by learned A.P.P. that investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet was filed. 5. In this criminal application, the applicants have prayed that AJN 4 the respondents be directed to comply with the order dated 11/7/2007 passed by the First Court. In our opinion, since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed, this application has, in effect, become infructuous. Learned counsel for the applicants have pointed out that in its order dated 11/7/2007, the First Court had directed the investigating agency to look into the averments made in the writ petition in relation to the fictitious transactions and action against receivers of the stolen property. He submitted that the investigating agency has not taken any steps in this behalf and, therefore, appropriate directions be given. It is pertinent to note that when this order was passed, the court was not informed that the investigation was complete and the charge- sheet was filed. When the application was moved for modification of the order dated 11/7/2007, this court took note of this fact and, accordingly, noted it in its order. Paragraph 4 of order dated 11/7/2007 needs to be read against the background of the above facts. Therefore, there is no question of re-opening of the investigation and giving any direction to the investigating agency at this stage. However, in any case, the grievance of the applicant AJN 5 can be taken care of by the trial court by taking recourse to section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which vests wide powers in the trial court. If in the course of any trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Needless to say that during the trial, if the court seized of the trial finds that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 6. We expect the trial judge to bear in mind the above provision while dealing with the instant trial. With the above observation, the instant application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]