# Ramesh Chandra Mishra Revisionist v. U.O.I - **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 168 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-12-16 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 877 of 2021 - **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-mishra-revisionist-v-u-o-i-46461 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote (A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SectionS 120-B, 409, 420, 468 & 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)D - Even after investigation is closed, under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency can file an application or the trial court can itself direct further investigation. (Para - 9) Revisionist's application under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. - for further investigation - rejected - by means of the judgement impugned - hence revision. (Para - 3) HELD:-At the stage, where the trial had to be still initiated, no application under Section 173 (8) (B) by the accused could have been entertained . No good ground to show interference in this revision.Para - 9,10) Criminal Revision rejected. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 18. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the general provision for filing discharge under Section 227 would apply also in such cases even though filed under the special act therefore the appropriate remedy for the revisionist is to approach the learned trial court and file appropriate discharge application when his case regarding his specific role can also be considered by the learned trial court. The orders summoning the accused in this case can only be passed on the contents of the complaint and prima facie role having been assigned by the complainant to the Directors of the company. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, had not erred in summoning the accused. It is now for the accused to file discharge application and show that they had resigned in 2011, and the manufacturing of drug which was found to be sub standard was much later in the year 2018-2019 and as such they cannot be held responsible for such act of the company. 20. The Revision is dismissed with the liberty to the revisionist to file appropriate discharge application through counsel within three weeks from today. The procedure prescribed in law shall be followed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda, and reasoned and speaking order thereafter be passed on such application. ---------- (2021)12ILR A168 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. Criminal Revision No. 877 of 2021 Ramesh Chandra Mishra ...Revisionist Versus U.O.I. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite Party: Shiv P. Shukla (A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SectionS 120-B, 409, 420, 468 & 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)D - Even after investigation is closed, under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency can file an application or the trial court can itself direct further investigation. (Para - 9) Revisionist's application under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. - for further investigation - rejected - by means of the judgement impugned - hence revision. (Para - 3) HELD:-At the stage, where the trial had to be still initiated, no application under Section 173 (8) (B) by the accused could have been entertained . No good ground to show interference in this revision.Para - 9,10) Criminal Revision rejected. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- 1. Athul Rao Vs St. of Karn. , 2018 (14) SCC 298 2. Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & ors. ,2017 (4) SCC 177 3. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. ,2019 (17) SCC 1 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the 11 All. Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs. U.O.I. 169 Additional District & Session Judge/Special Court CBI No.06, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3444/2019 Crime No. 09 (A) of 2014 under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 13 (2) readwith 13(1)D Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist's application under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation has been rejected by means of the judgement impugned. 4. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that chargesheet was filed on 15.03.2017 on the basis of records and evidences collected by the Investigating Officer, but in para 16.30 of the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the opinion/report of the Central Forensic Laboratory(CFSL) Chandigarh in respect of the questioned handwritings and signatures is awaited, which will be submitted in the Court as & when it is received. It has also been submitted that when he be came aware that the CFSL report was sent to the Investigating Officer only on 03.05.2017, and no definite opinion was expressed with regard to certain documents being in the handwriting of the accused/revisionist, the revisionist filed an application on 25.11.2021 for further investigation on the ground that the chargesheet has been filed without waiting for the CFSL report. Also the CFSL expert has requested for other specimens to be provided to him to submit a definite opinion. Therefore, it can be deemed that no fair investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency. Only the CFSL report can prove the alleged offences against the revisionist, therefore, a request was made that the learned trial court should direct further investigation by sending other specimen of the accused handwriting for a definite opinion by the CFSL expert. 5. Sri Shiv. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the CBI has pointed from the report of the CFSL Scientist, which has been filed as annexure-03 of the application of interim relief, that in the first page itself, there is a mention of the specimen that were provided of writing of the revisionist. They were mentioned in Sub-para 1 from S1 to S39, S65 to S104, S125 to S129, S136 to S147 and S160 to S171. There were other specimens provided of other accused, namely, Pateshwari Prasad Shukla, Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ravi Prakash Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Goel, Raj Kumar Goel, Vishal Kumar Mathur, Rakesh Singh, Ashok Kumar Awasthi, Krishna Tripathi and Mahendra Kumar Jain. It is not with respect to the revisionist alone that the scientist has made observations in paragraph 8, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is with respect to other accused, whereas certain other documents have definitely been found to be written by the accused/revisionist. The opinion that has been expressed by the Scientist is definite with respect to the accused/revisionist only. Some specimens were found questionable, and therefor,e corroboratory evidence are asked for by the CFSL expert. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no application by the accused under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable. He has read out the entire Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to show that it is part of a scheme of 8 Sub-Sections. They all relate to the Investigating Agency/Officer making a request for further investigation or a Magistrate on its own Suo-Moto coming to a conclusion that further investigation is necessary, could order the same. There was in the Section itself that if any right of the accused/revisionist to make such an application he has referred to a judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athul Rao vs. State of Karnataka decided on 18.08.2017 reported in 2018 (14) SCC 298, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier judgement in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai 170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Kantibhai Patel and others 2017 (4) SCC 177 relevant paragraph 50 of the judgement is quoted herein below:- "The unamended and amended SubSection 8 of Section 173 of the Code if read in juxtaposition, would overwhelmingly attest that by the latter, the Investigating Agency/Officer alone has been authorised to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. The power qua the Investigating Agency/Officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifestly heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone." 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Others Vs. State of Gujrat and Another 2019 (17) SCC 1. 8. This Court has considered paragraph 25 of the Judgement which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist and finds that there is no specific direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even the accused can file an application under Section 173 (8) for further investigation. 9. This Court has also considered the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application of the revisionist. Learned trial court has considered the fact that the discharge application of the revisionist is already pending before it and that charge-sheet had not been submitted only on the basis of the CFSL report, there were other attending circumstances and evidences that were relied upon to submit the said charge-sheet and also that even after investigation is closed, under Section 173 (8), the Investigating Agency can file an application or the learned trial court can itself direct further investigation. It is not as if only the CFSL report shall be relied upon by the learned trial court in convicting the accused. As and when evidences are led in the matter, the accused shall have opportunity to question the report and its validity. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that the accused's file had been separated from the original case file on 24.10.2019, it was received in the trial court on 03.03.2020 alongwith application, the case had been continuously listed since 22.09.2021 for arguments on discharge application of the accused. Therefore, at that stage, where the trial had to be still initiated, no application under Section 173 (8) (B) by the accused could have been entertained. A date has also been fixed for hearing arguments on the discharge application by the learned trial court. 10. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in this revision. 11. Accordingly, this revision stands rejected. ---------- (2021)12ILR A170 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. Criminal Revision No. 2942 of 2021 Ashok Kumar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Dharmendra Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A.