1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 55 / 2011 ( Shahajirao Punjaji Rawale vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2011. Heard Mr. M. K. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.B. Yengal, learned APP for respondents. By this application, the revision-applicant has questioned the validity, legality and correctness of the order below Exh. 63 dated 25.1.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Achalpur in proceedings bearing SPMO No. 116/2009. It appears that before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Achalpur, an application was moved seeking directions to conduct enquiry through CID or CBI, addition of accused and to prosecute other persons found guilty, after holding fresh enquiry. It appears that the applicant had earlier moved Criminal Writ Petition No.170/2010 which he had withdrawn with liberty to file an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Achalpur. According to the applicant, his son, by name, Sachin Shahajirao Rawale aged about 22 years, died under mysterious 2 circumstances as his dead body was seen floating on water in a well on 15.8.2009 at about 6.00 a.m. The FIR was registered as Crime No. 62/2009 at about 22.30 hours. In the course of investigation, the post-mortem over dead body was held in Rural Hospital at Chandur Bazar and, according to applicant(complainant), the cause of death was mentioned as assault by hard and sharp object as also due to drowning. It is contended that the post-mortem was carried out within 12-hours from lodging of the FIR and that there were as many as nine injuries on the dead body. It was suspected that Sachin was murdered by one Pradip Bapurao Awasarmol due to alleged illicit relations between Sachin and wife of said Pradip Awasarmol. The complainant also suspected that other persons also have been involved along with Pradip Awasarmol for the simple reason that Sachin was well- built young man with 80 to 85 kg. weight ; whereas accused Pradip was haggard and emaciated and, therefore, could not have murdered him alone. According to applicant, brother of Pradip by name Prakash Bapurao Awasarmol was also very much present when the complaint was lodged but the Police Station Officer, Shirajgaon-Kajba and arrested only Pradip. Apart from these two persons, the applicant had also suspected other persons viz. Rajesh Awasarmol, Bapurao Awasarmol ; Mahendra Awasarmol including wife of Prakash Awasarmol. The applicant had also shot off a litany of woes to the Superintendent of Police, (Rural) Amravati 3 Dist. Amravati, with copies thereof to District Collector, Police Commissioner, Member of Parliament, Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Achalpur as also Rashtriya Charmakar Mahasangh, Amravati. According to the applicant, charge-sheet came to be filed only against Pradip Awasarmol. Under these circumstances, the applicant prayed for suitable action against the persons named by him and also investigation by watchdogs, such as, CBI or CID or any other independent agency or officer above the rank of Superintendent of Police so as book the culprits responsible for heinous murder of Sachin (son of the applicant). It appears that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had called upon the learned APP to clarify as to under which provisions of law the application filed would be maintainable and such a relief could be granted, by passing the order on 19.11.2010. It appears that the other side too was called upon to file say on the application. However on 25.1.2011 on the ground that the learned APP Shri Bahrekar had expressed his inability to show any provision of law by taking resort to which the application can be entertained, the learned Judge simply filed the application. The applicant-herein aggrieved by the order contended that under section 319 of Cr.P.C. the trial Court can exercise power to indict other persons appearing to be guilty of offence so as to try them together with the accused charge-sheeted. It is true that 4 in the course of any enquiry or trial of an offence if there is evidence that any other person not being accused in the case, appears to have committed any offence for which such person can be tried together with the accused, the trial Court can certainly proceed against such other person by summoning additional accused and if such person is not attending the Court despite summons, such a person’s presence may also be procured by coercive process i.e. by issuing warrants etc. Learned APP has opposed the Revision with all vehemence contending that enquiry into the allegations was conducted but nobody had supported the version of the applicant in respect of his allegations. Nobody has claimed to have seen the incident of alleged murder. The applicant had filed Writ Petition but in the name of seeking alternate remedy, had approached the Sessions Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge who obviously had no power to grant the relief asked for by the applicant and, therefore, by impugned order, the application was rightly disposed of. Under these circumstances, the Revision Application has been opposed. Be that as it may, it appears that before passing the impugned order by learned Addl. Sessions Judge he had granted opportunity to learned APP to clarify as to how such application can be granted for direction to CID or CBI to investigate into the alleged offence. The applicant himself did not mention the provision of law under which such prayer can 5 be granted by learned Sessions Judge to direct investigation by CID or CBI or to prosecute the guilty persons who may be found after fresh enquiry. For the afore-noted reasons and considering that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did gave an opportunity to the applicant as also learned APP concerned and finally decided to file the application, I think that prima facie there is no impropriety or illegality in filing the application, which was not maintainable before the Sessions Judge. Regarding the prayer of the applicant to induct additional accused u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., it is always open for the revision-applicant as also State of Maharashtra to produce material collected during the course of investigation before the Court or to seek permission to carry on further investigation in view of Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and if any evidence is collected against other persons not being the accused before the Court, the learned trial Judge concerned can certainly consider the evidence against other persons not being accused before the Court if they can be tried together with the accused already charge-sheeted. With the above observations, the revision being sans merit, is dismissed. JUDGE Sahare