AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. An interlocutory application has been filed in the main application, whereby and whereunder the petitioner confines his prayer as indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interlocutory application.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interlocutory application run as follows: -
"4. That a new paragraph No. 40A be added after paragraph 40 of the writ petition.
"That the C.B.I. did not investigate the case in the light of the statement made in the F.I.R. regarding destruction by the Bank officials all the documents pertaining to 19.4.1985. "
That in paragraph 1 of the writ petition the following prayer be added.
"The petitioner prays that Respondent No. 2 be directed to reinvestigate the case in the light of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and fix the responsibility of the Bank officials."
It appears from the materials on record that in this case chargesheet was filed in the year 1991 and now the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the investigating agency to investigate the case in the manner as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interlocutory application.
In my opinion, the petitioner cannot ask for such a direction to the investigating agency to investigate the case from a particular angle. - It is expected from the investigating agency to investigate the case from all the angles or per se the accusation made in the first information report. Secondly, the matter cannot be reopened after filing of the chargesheet as far back as in the year 1991.
The investigation part since has ended, in my opinion, no further direction can be issued. The interlocutory application as well as the main application, accordingly, are dismissed.