IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1710 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.6294/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------- D.THANKAMMA, W/O. THANKAPPAN, PALATHUMPATTA VEEDU, THIMARAVUNKARA MURI, PADINJATTOTHORA P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SASI RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1710 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent. 2. Petitioner is the widow of a victim in a motor accident. Husband of petitioner was hit by the offending vehicle allegedly driven by the accused. He sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Police registered case against the accused for offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. Final report was filed against the accused attributing the said offences. Complaint of the petitioner is that place of accident is not properly identified by the investigating officer and that there is no proper identification of the driver of the offending vehicle in that, his community is not correctly mentioned in the records. Learned magistrate observed that the objection of the petitioner as to the investigation appears to be the result of some misunderstanding, no such fault was committed by the Police and disallowed the prayer for further investigation. Learned counsel submits that whenever shortcomings are brought to the notice of court, it is within the power of the court to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 929). 2 3. Question whether further investigation is ordered should depend on the factual situation emerging in each case. In this case objection is regarding the spot of accident identified by the police. Learned counsel pointed out that in the FIR, there is no reference to the accident spot and instead, it is simply stated as “at the road side in front of the house of Malayil Somasekhara Pillai”. The FIR is prepared on the basis of first information statement given by the informant. Hence only as stated in the first information statement, accident spot will be stated in the FIR. I find from the mahazar for scene of occurrence that the accident spot is specifically pinpointed by the investigating officer. Therefore, there cannot be any objection regarding that aspect. 4. So far as identification of the accused is concerned, it is for the witnesses to identify the driver of the offending vehicle in the course of trial. Merely because his community is not correctly stated in the case records, that cannot be taken as wrong identification of the accused. Further investigation cannot be ordered for the mere asking. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision Petition fails. it is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks