IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2008 SHRI. KAMAL DEENDAYAL MUNDRA ... Applicant Versus S T A T E C.B.I./ACB/GOA ... Respondent Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 24th June, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/A-4 and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 2-1-2008 of the learned Special Judge, Margao in Special Case No. 3 of 2006 by which the request of the C.B.I. has been allowed directing the Applicant/A-4 to report for further interrogation. There is no dispute that the Applicant/A-4 was arrested and his statement was recorded by the Complainant-C.B.I./Respondent herein. After filing of the charge-sheet, A-5 came to be arrested and he was remanded to custody during which his statement was recorded on 11-11-2007. The C.B.I. wanted to interrogate the Applicant/A-4 further in the light of the facts revealed by A-5 in his statement dated 11-11-2007 which permission has been granted by the learned Special Judge. The application was filed on behalf of the C.B.I. by one of the P.S.I. investigating the case. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the said application was nothing but a report submitted as regards the arrests of A-3 and A-5 and no material was placed as to why further interrogation of the Applicant/A-4 was required. The said application when read as a whole does show that a prayer was made for further interrogation of the Applicant/A-4 and it also reflects the circumstances in which it was made. Nevertheless as stated on behalf of the Respondent necessity arose to further interrogate the Applicant/A-4 in the light of the facts stated by A-5 who was arrested and interrogated subsequently. The Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. S. Peter((2008) 2 SCC 383) has stated that where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. In the light of that, the impugned Order permitting the C.B.I. to interrogate the Applicant/A-4 could not be faulted. There is no merit in this petition. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.