1. This Revision application is directed against the order passed below Exhibit 97 in Sessions Case No.198 of 2008 dated 23.6.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad City.
2. The applicant is original complainant of C.R. No.356 of 2008 lodged before Bapunagar Police Station on 17.11.2002 and in connection of the said CR, the trial of of the Sessions Case No.198 of 2008 is going on and almost all the witnesses have been examined including the Investing Officer Z.S.Pathan, who was examined at Exhibit 90 as P.W.12. The said Investigating Officer gave an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall him to record deposition regarding cross case which is pending before the lower Court. The said application was heard at length and on 26.6.2011, the same was rejected by the lower Court.
3. Learned advocate Mrs. Dutta for the applicant submitted that due to oversight and due to fault on the part of the prosecution, the copy of the other complaint i.e. C.R. II No.3124 of 2002 registered with Bapunagar Police Station, which is crosscomplaint, was not produced and reference of the said crosscomplaint was not made by the Investigating Officer in his deposition. Therefore, the said application below Exhibit 97 for recalling to record the deposition was preferred by the Investigating Officer. She therefore, prayed to allow the Revision Application.
4. Learned APP Mr. Jani submitted that State has not filed any Revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Chaumal appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 10 – original accused submitted that the present applicant – original complainant has no locus to challenge the aforesaid order. The application was preferred by the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 before the Sessions Case with a view to fill up lacuna and hence, such Revision is not required to be entertained.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record. I have taken into consideration the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, wherein at para 5 and 7, the learned Sessions Judge has observed as under :
“5. I have heard oral arguments of the applicant Jafrullakhan Pathan, LA Mr. S.M. Merchant for the accused No.1, 4, 5 and 6, LA Mr. R.G. Chomal for the accused No.7 and LA Mr. H.S. Ravat for the accused No.2,3,8 and 9. I have also gone through the written reply filed by the LA of the accused at exh.100. It is the main argument of the applicant Jafrullakhan that due to span of time and as he got retirement from the Govt. Service, he could not depose on some portion before the Court of law and hence, it is required to recall him to the record deposition and allow the present application.
7. I have gone through the charge framed at exh.22. I have gone through the application filed at exh.97 and deposition recorded at exh.91. The application exh.97 is not submitted by the learned APP. On referring exh.11 a pursis filed by Mr. N.K. Barot, P.I., it is clear that names of two of the accused namely Ashok Vishwanath Sharma, an advocate and second accused Rakesh Vishwanath Sharma are mentioned. But there is no sufficient evidence against both these persons and hence, Shri N.K. Barot, P.I. has not arrested them and in column No.2 of the charge sheet their names are mentioned. As per the pursis exh.11, both these persons had gone to Mount Abu and Udeypur and hence, they are not involved in the said so called offence. It is necessary to note at this stage and as per the oral argument of LA for the accused No.1, 4, 5 and 6 Shri Merchant, the then Ld. Session Judge has only passed an order to the effect that “Notice to the other side and for reply”. In support of pursis exh.11, Shri Barot, P.I. has submitted copy of station diary of Bapunagar Police Station and the then Ld. Session Judge has not passed order below exh.11. Hence, looking to this aspect the said pursis is deemed to be recorded by the then Ld. Session Judge.”
7. Before the lower Court, the learned APP has not preferred the application but the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 preferred the said application, for recalling him to record deposition with regard to the issue of crosscomplaint. Learned advocate Mrs. Dutta admitted that present applicant has no locus and when the learned APP before the lower Court has not produced the copy of that cross complaint, the right of the prosecution is open till now and it is a duty of the Public Prosecutor to produce the copy of the crosscomplaint before the lower Court. It appears from the application below Exhibit 97, that the complainant has filed this Revision Application to fill up lacuna.
8. In view of the above observation, I do not find any substance in this application. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)