IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(Crl.).No. 3851 of 2011(Q) ------------------------------------- CRMP 3267/11 IN SC.272/2006 of II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSION COURT, PALAKKAD ................................................. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIRAJUDEEN, S/O. A . ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 39 YEARS, C/O.K.S.ISMAIL, THAPPIL HOUSE, KORANKKAD, MATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD 678 571 BY ADV. SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING C.B.C.I.D PALAKKAD IN CRIME NO.122/CR/95 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS O.P. (CRIMINAL). NO. 3851 of 2011 (Q) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CRL.MP.NO.3267/2011 IN S.C. NO.272/2006 OF THE COURT OF SESSION PALAKKAD(ADDL.NO.II) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- O.P.(Crl.)No.3851 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 Judgment This Original Petition is filed by the accused in S.C.No.272 of 2006 which is now pending on the file of Sessions Court, Palakkad. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 120(b), 364, 302, 392 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. It is contended by the petitioner that the prosecution claims to have recovered the photo copy of the duplicate driving licence of the deceased from the petitioner herein. During trial, the duplicate driving licence was stated to have been marked as Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 is a concocted document. Simply because the accused denies the genuineness of Ext.P7, no further investigation can be had on that question. An application was filed by the accused to call for the records relating to the driving licence as well as the issue of duplicate of registration certificate. The Regional Transport Authority replied that those documents are not available in that office. According to the petitioner, no investigation was conducted to find out whether Ext.P7 was a OP(Crl.)3851/2011 2 genuine document or whether duplicate registration certificate was issued subsequent to the murder. Hence, according to the petitioner who is an accused, further investigation has to be conducted. For that purpose, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge as Crl.M.P.No.3267 of 2011. That petition was not disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioner has come to this court to direct the Sessions Court, Palakkad (Addl.No.II) to consider and pass orders on Crl.M.P.No.3262 of 2011 in SC No.272 of 2006. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that no further investigation can be ordered at the instance of the accused. The investigating agency relies upon certain documents and oral evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The correctness/genuineness of any document is to be considered by the court based on the evidence adduced before it. The accused cannot contend that the investigation is to be conducted in a particular manner. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it is only the investigating officer who can file a petition before the court below seeking further investigation. In fact what is required is actually not permission but only information to the OP(Crl.)3851/2011 3 court. The court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle though the power of the police to conduct further investigation after filing of the final report is recognized under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the petition was filed by the accused, the learned Trial Judge should have disposed of that application after hearing the parties. Hence, the court below will dispose of that application on merit after hearing the petitioner. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd OP(Crl.)3851/2011 4