IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 153 of 2008 Bachan Singh Chauhan .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent July 5, 2010 Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of NS Negi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the order dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No. 68/2007, State through Bachan Singh Chauhan v. Unknown whereby the final report submitted by the Investigation Officer after investigation of the case has been accepted by the said court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 3. This revision came up before this Court for admission on 14.8.2008. On that day, learned Counsel for the revisionist prayed for and was allowed two weeks’ time to file the supplementary affidavit. On the next date of listing i.e. on 18.2.2009, the case was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the revisionist. On the further date i.e. on 17.3.2009, the case was again adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the revisionist. Thereafter on the next date of listing i.e. on 1.5.2009, learned Counsel for the revisionist again prayed for and was allowed three weeks’ time to file the supplementary affidavit. Thereafter the case has come up today, but till date no supplementary affidavit could be filed by him. 4. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. NS Negi, learned Counsel for the revisionist is present today in the Court, who has stated that he has got no instructions from his client and, therefore, he does not want to file any supplementary affidavit. 5. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2008 reveals that initially the case was investigated by the CB-CID and after the investigation, final report was submitted. But the revisionist has filed objection against the said final report and, therefore, on 12.9.2007 Divisional Officer, CB-CID was directed to conduct reinvestigation in the case, who accordingly conducted the reinvestigation and again submitted a final report stating that no eyewitness of the alleged incident was available on the basis of which allegation of murder of Anwar Singh, son of the complainant/revisionist can be proved and chargesheet cannot be submitted in the absence any credible evidence. Even no evidence was produced by the complainant/revisionist before the I.O. The revisionist again filed his objections on 6.5.2008 against the said final report. But the court below has accepted by the aforesaid final report vide the impugned order dated 28.5.2006 and hence, this revision has been preferred. 6. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that the complain of the revisionist that his son Anwar Singh was murdered was investigated twice by the CB-CID and after the investigation and reinvestigation, CB-CID filed final report on both the occasions as no eyewitness of the alleged incident was available and even no other credible evidence was found to connect anybody with the alleged incident. Even, the complainant/revisionist himself did not produce any evidence before the Investigation Officer. In these circumstances, the final report was filed by the Investigation 2 Officer which was rightly accepted by the court below vide the impugned order. I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the court below, which is correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above. Even learned Counsel for the revisionist could not point out any mistake in the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.5.2008 and even he has not filed any supplementary evidence to show that any evidence with regard to the alleged incident is available with the complainant/revisionist. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine. Order dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No. 68/2007, State through Bachan Singh Chauhan v. Unknown is hereby affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.7.2010 PRABODH 3