IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No. 28777 of 2006 & M.P. No. 1 of 2006 Santha @ Santhakumari .. Petitioner. Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram (Dt.). .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to transfer the investigation either to the CBI or CBCID Police for re-investigation which was done by the respondent police in Crime No. 236 of 2004, which is now pending trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram (Dt.) in S.C. No. 86 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.N. Kanakaraj For Respondent : Mr. J.C. Durairaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This petition seeks a direction for transfer of investigation in Crime No. 236 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a pair of diamond, ear rings and gold chain was snatched from the petitioner at about 8.30 p.m. on 05.08.2004. She had preferred a complaint there regards on 06.08.2004, immediately upon which, Crime No. 236 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police came to be registered. The respondent police arrested certain accused on 11.08.2004 and the stolen articles were recovered from them on the same date. Initially, a charge sheet came to be filed on 09.11.2004 for offences under Sections 341, 394, 395 r/w. 109 IPC. In such charge sheet, it was informed that the value of the stolen articles in respect of which offences were committed was of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. The stolen articles were produced before the concerned Court on 10.03.2005. On finding that the articles did not tally with the Form- 95 put up therewith, the Court returned the same. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed by the respondent police on 18.05.2005 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ informing that what was seized in the case were a pair of earrings with American diamonds of value Rs. 100/- (Rs. 50 x 2) and a gold covering chain value Rs. 300/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is just necessary that transfer of investigation to be ordered in the case. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) placed reliance on the counter filed by the respondent, which states that articles seized on 11.08.2004 had been produced before the Court on 12.08.2004. The concerned Court had made the following endorsement: "Produce the property at the time of filing charge sheet along with the Appraiser". As the respondent found it necessary to file a charge sheet before expiry of 90 days from the date of arrest of the accused, a formal charge sheet was filed before the Court on 09.11.2004. Subsequently, the Lab Technician attached to Department of Geology and Mines appeared before the Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur on 10.03.2005 and based on the order of the learned Magistrate, the alleged Diamond Stones were tested scientifically in the presence of the defacto complainant. It was certified that they were not original stones, but were American Diamonds. Subsequently, allegedly gold chain was tested and found to be gold covering jewellery. The petitioner / complainant had not at such stage, challenged the findings. The case is now pending for trial in S.C. 86 of 2008 before the Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram (Dt.). In the circumstances, it is contended that no occasion arose to suspect any wrong doing on the part of the respondent police. As such, no transfer of investigation ought to be directed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. I find that the contention made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be easily brushed aside. To do so would be to risk injustice. Where the original charge sheet filed shows that the value of the articles were Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, it is not possible to ignore the same on the basis of what is stated in the affidavit filed by the respondent. Only proper investigation would reveal where the truth lies. The explanation offered by the respondent cannot be accepted at this stage. This Court finds it appropriate to direct further investigation in the case in keeping Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In the interest of justice, such investigation shall be conducted by the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram. Investigation shall be supervised by the Superintendent of Police and the same shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The proceedings in S.C. No. 86 of 2006 on the file of Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram (Dt.) shall stand stayed till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filing of the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Upon receipt, it will be open to the lower Court to continue the proceedings in S.C. No. 86 of 2006. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Assistant Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram. 2. -do Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 3. The District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. 5. The Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram (Dt.). 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc to M/s.N.Kanagaraj, Advocate, Sr.No.20176 Crl.O.P.No. 28777 of 2006 & M.P. No. 1 of 2006 RV {CO} TP/15.4.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/