Rakesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P.

Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava for the Petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the opposite-party.

This petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur whereby he has directed the case Crime No. 901 of 1999 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., P. S. Cantt district Gorakhpur to proceed.

The facts are that the aforesaid case was registered at P.S. Cantt, district Gorakhpur and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequent thereto, further investigation of the case was assigned to Economic Offiences Units, Varanasi Region by a Government Order dated 10th July, 2000. The Inspector, Economic Offences, Varanasi Region moved the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with a prayer to permit him to have the copies of relevant papers from the record as to facilitate further investigation in the matter (Annexure-4 to the petition). He also moved the Court for a permission to take the finger prints and specimen signature of the Petitioner-accused Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, who was then languishing inside the lockup (Annexure-3 to the petition). Since Economic Offences Branch has also been assigned investigation of the case and further investigation was going on in pursuance thereto, the Petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide application in Annexure-5 to the petition to stay his further trial in the case. The learned Magistrate after having considered the entire aspects of the matter passed the impugned order (Annexure-6 to the petition) whereby he rejected the prayer by a cryptic order stating that since charge-sheet has been submitted, the case would proceed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that since investigation is going on and further materials are being collected by the Economic Offence Branch, which might be even to the benefit of the accused, the hearing with the trial might cause prejudice to the accused. Learned Counsel has, thus, contended that it was in the fitness of things for the learned Magistrate to have legally stayed the proceedings of the trial and to have waited for the results of further investigation.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that the Government had ordered further investigation in the case, which was going on. If the Cantt. police have submitted charge-sheet, it was not necessary that the trial should have forthwith started. There was every likelihood of certain positive result in the ongoing investigation in the case which could be favourable to the accused. As such, it was not necessary rather, it could prejudice the interest of the accused, if the case is concluded without waiting for the results of further investigation going on in the matter. The order of the Magistrate refusing to grant the stay of the trial, which has been challenged in this petition appears to be not sound in the eye of law and it does require interference.

The petition is allowed.

The impugned order (Annexure-6 to the petition) dated 19.6.2001 is hereby quashed and the Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial only after taking the final result of the ongoing investigation conducted by the Economic Offences Branch of Varanasi Region.