1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.698 OF 2009. Zahir Abdul Kadir Pathan and others. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.P.S.Dighe, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P.for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.09.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners are original accused persons against whom Sessions Case No.41/2009, 2 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani. 3. The gravamen of the charge is that the petitioner along with one more accused abducted/kidnapped first informant Dilip Vedant and attempted to strangulate him by means of a rope with intent to cause his death. The motive was that he was not ready to depose on behalf of the accused Nos.2 and 3 in a Civil matter founded on a Will-deed of which he is said to be the witness. 4. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the Investigating Officer, namely, PSI Dilip Meherkar. The trial was at the fag end, an application (Exh.58) was moved seeking leave for further investigation U/s 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge granted the leave vide the impugned order for the reason that the motor cycle used in the commission of the crime, mobiles of the accused persons and the Will were required to be seized. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion 3 that such further investigation could be permitted under sub-clause (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner have preferred this Writ Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 6. So far as scope of Section 173(8) is concerned, it is important to notice that ordinarily the fresh investigation can not be directed. Sub-clause (8) of Section 173 reads as follows : "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a 4 further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as faras may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section(2)." The sub-section (8) would come into play when the Investigating Officer has come across some new material which requires further investigation. What appears from the facts of the present case is that the learned Sessions Judge has put some questions to the Investigating Officer as the Court questions. It is not that the motive for commission of the alleged offence was not known to the Investigating Officer. It is not a case in which the fact about use of the motor-cycle was not revealed at the initial stage. The victim did not refer to any particular motor-cycle with reference to the registration number or brand thereof. So also, no particulars were given regarding the mobile phones used and the 5 relevancy of such telephonic communication. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the peculiar fact situation of the case before passing the order in question. He has observed that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the same matter and had not seized the motor-cycle or the mobile. So far as the question regarding production of Will is concerned, he does not require any further investigation as such. For, it is stated that the original Will-deed is filed in the Court at Mumbai. The prosecution can collect certified copy of the Will in order to buttress the fact pertaining to the alleged motive. For such a trivial reason, further investigation is unwarranted. The endeavour of the Court should be to inject appropriate speed in the trial. The further investigation can be directed only when there is some material which is subsequently gathered or is likely to be of most significant nature. The learned Sessions Judge observed that seizure of the alleged stone used in the commission of offence is one of the reason for fur further investigation. I fail to see any 6 rationale in this kind of observation. The incident had occurred on 9.12.2006. No prudent man will expect that the same stone is still lying at the place as if it is a monument. The impugned order depicts irrational approach to the matter and, therefore, such afresh investigation should not have been ordered by imposing the ideas which were in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge about which the prosecution itself was not much anxious to pursue. Needless to say, the impugned order is quite uncalled for. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Rule made absolute. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp69809