1 wp2138.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2138 OF 2010 Bharat G. Kakadia & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Subhash Jha i/by M/s. Law Global for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 4th August, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at length. We have perused the copy of the charge-sheet filed on 22nd September, 2009. 2 It is the case of the Petitioners that the accused Shri Suresh Bagadia is a broker for sale of diamonds and is known to the Petitioners for quite some time. It is alleged that in the first installment, diamonds worth Rs.46 lacs were handed over to him for sale and in the second installment diamonds worth Rs.1, 46,47,484/- were handed over to him for sale. He did not come back either with the intimation of sale of diamonds or to return them. As per the Petitioners, he just absconded and became untraceable. Hence the Petitioners filed two different private complaints in 2 wp2138.10.sxw ssm the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and the subsequent to the order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., MECR No. 8 of 2009 and 9 of 2009 came to be registered with the D.B. Marg Police Station. The accused continued to abscond but he surrendered to the D.B. Marg Police Station on 25th June, 2009. This Court entertained his application for bail registered as Criminal Application No. 4683 of 2009 and granted him bail on 4th December, 2009. This Court also directed the learned Magistrate to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and without being influenced of any observations made in the said order, after noting the fact that the charge-sheets were already filed. 3 Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the investigation done leading to the filing of the charge-sheets suffers from number of deficiencies and the I.O. had not taken the required steps. It was further alleged that during the course of investigation, the accused was allowed to escape and the required measures based on certain documents, were not taken for recovery of the diamonds. 4 Even as per the case of the petitioners, when the diamonds were handed over, the accused had purportedly signed on a carbon copy acknowledging the receipt and during the course of investigation, the diamonds could not be recovered. Merely because the accused was 3 wp2138.10.sxw ssm absconded and he himself surrendered to the police station, cannot be a reason to accept the contention that the investigation was not up to the mark and there is need to conduct further investigation by the Economic Offences Wing. 5 It is well settled that the trial court, if satisfied, has the powers to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and as per the amended provisions of the said Code, the complainant is entitled to engage an advocate so as to assist the prosecutor before the trial court. Prima facie, it appears that it is for the petitioners to prove that they had handed over the diamonds to the accused for sale and that he did not return the same or the proceeds of the sale were not paid to them. 6 Hence, there is no case to entertain this petition so as to direct the Economic Offences Wing, to undertake further investigation and we make it clear that if and when the trial court is called upon to consider the issue of further investigation, this order will not come in its way and such an application will have to be considered by the trial court on its one merits. 7 The petition is dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)