The defacto complainant in C.C.No.1555/2008 and the petitioner in C.M.P.No.365/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala is the petitioner herein. 2. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the revision petitioner herein against the first respondent alleging misappropriation of funds from the bank and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1555/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. After the appearance of the accused, charge was framed and trial was started. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the prosecution. It was at that stage that the revision petitioner filed CMP.No.365/2014 before the court below for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that proper investigation has not been conducted, even appointment order has not been seized and the computer through which the transaction has been done was not examined by an expert and the scientific method of investigation, which is required in a case of this nature has not been conducted by the investigating agency and those materials are required for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case and for that purpose, further investigation is required and that is the prayer in the petition.
3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter.
4. After considering the objection and also the request made in the petition, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the application for further investigation, but an opportunity has been given for producing the appointment letter and marking through other witnesses and also to examine a computer expert, if necessary for the purpose of proving the case. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the entire mischief was done by the accused using the computer and without examining the hard disk of the computer, the transaction done by the accused cannot be proved.
7. But the counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the court has given an opportunity to adduce further evidence and for that purpose, the matter need not be reopened for further investigation.
8. It is an admitted fact that while the first respondent was working in the complainant bank, some irregularities in the financial matter was found out and on the basis of the complaint given by the revision petitioner bank, a criminal case was registered against the first respondent and after investigation, final report was filed in the year 2008 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.1555/2008. It is also seen from the order of the court below that PW1 in the case was examined on 15.11.2010. So it cannot be said that at that time they were not aware of the laches in the investigation. They have not taken any steps at the earliest possible time to file an application for this purpose. Further, investigation was completed in the year 2008 and an application for further investigation was filed in the year 2014, after the lapse of nearly six years. Further, opportunity for the revision petitioner to produce further evidence to prove the allegations has not been shut out by the court below. The revision petitioner is directed to produce additional evidence either oral evidence or documentary evidence before the court below by filing an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court and if such an application is filed, the court will consider those aspects and pass appropriate orders on that application in accordance with law. With the above liberty, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of.
Accordingly with the above liberty and directions, this revision petition is disposed of.
cl /true copy/ Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
P.S to Judge