1 wp-3148-2010 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3148 OF 2010 Kanhaiya Jagdish Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.U.N.Tripathi, Amicus Curie. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. June 17, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Tripathi, the learned amicus curie and Ms. Mhatre, the learned APP. We have also perused the order passed by this Court on 8th February 2011 as well as the affidavit filed by Mrs. Surekha Kapile, Police Inspector from Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The petitioner prays for transferring the investigation in C.R.No.73 of 2009 2 wp-3148-2010 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai to the State CID or any other independent investigating agency on the ground that the true facts in the crime have not been brought on record during the course of investigation. 2. C.R.No.73 of 2009 came to be registered on 24/3/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC and on investigation in the said CR charge-sheet came to be submitted in the 32nd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra on 21/3/2010. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court. It appears that the IO continued further investigation after the charge- sheet was filed and statement of one Mohammed Toufiq @ Shaikh, who happens to be the brother of the original complainant, was recorded on 22nd August 2009 and on 24/6/2010 the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with C.R.No.73 of 2009 and was shown as accused no.5 in C.R.No.73 of 2009. Supplementary charge-sheet has been filed on 23/7/2010 and the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected. 3. The affidavit filed by the Police Inspector states that in Sessions Case No.389 of 2009 the trial has commenced on 5/4/2011 and by now 3 wp-3148-2010 five witnesses have been examined. For further recording of evidence of the witnesses the said case is coming up before the Sessions Court on 21/6/2011. 4. Mr.Tripathi, the learned amicus curie invited our attention to the order passed by this Court on 8th February 2011 and submitted that the documents have not yet been supplied to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is accused no.5 in Sessions Case No.389 of 2010 and is represented by an Advocate and in case the prosecution has not placed before the trial Court the Station Diary maintained by the ACP for the period from 27th to 29th March 2009 and if the same is found to be material, the Advocate for the petitioner may apply for production of the said documents. We are informed by Ms.Mhatre that copies of attendance record for the period such attendance record was maintained, have been supplied to the petitioner. So far as case diary in C.R.No.73 of 2009 maintained by the I.O. from 23rd March 2009 till the charge-sheet was submitted is concerned, the same is required to be produced for perusal of the trial Court and the trial Court may pass appropriate orders 5. In these obtaining circumstances, we are satisfied that the prayer 4 wp-3148-2010 for transfer of investigation in C.R.No.73 of 2009 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station to any other independent agency as made by the petitioner need not be considered and hence the petition is rejected. 6. The professional fees of amicus curie is quantified at Rs.1000/-. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)