The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the magistrate's power to direct further investigation after the trial has commenced, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT

1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the Order 10/2/2021 below Exhibit 341 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi, on an application in Regular Criminal Case No.72 of 2007, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the Application preferred by the Petitioner, seeking direction to the police to file a supplementary chargesheet on the basis of the additional evidence i.e. audio-video record and documents produced by the Petitioner.

2. The litigation, which forms the subject matter of this Petition, seems to have a chequered histody. The Petitioner Company deals in the business of mining in Sindhudurg District and the State of Goa. The Petitioner Company claimed to have stored around 58000 metric ton of iron ore at Village Sateli, Taluka, Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg. The accused threatened to invade the said property and remove iron ore therefrom. Though the Petitioner filed a written complaint with Sawantwadi Police Station, no effective action was taken and only a N.C.No.187 of 2004 was registered on the premise that the dispute was of civil nature. The accused/defendants were restrained by the civil court from causing obstruction to the possession of the Petitioner over the said property. Yet on 21/5/2007, the accused and their hire lings allegedly forcibly entered into the Petitioners' stock yard and took away 24000 metric tons of iron ore therefrom. A report was lodged on 22/5/2007 leading to registration of FIR No.45 of 2007.

3. As the investigation was not conducted impartially and earnestly, the Petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.994 of 2007. After recording an assurance given to the Court by the Investigating Officer that proper investigation would be conducted, by an order dtd. 6/6/2007, the Petition came to be disposed of. Another Writ Petition No.419 of 2015 was filed by the Petitioner. The same was disposed of by an order dtd. 14/8/2015 by this Court opining inter alia that a remedy under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available to the Petitioner.

4. The trial commenced. The Petitioner preferred a number of applications to ensure that the guilty were brought to book. The Petitioner, interalia, preferred an Application (Exhibit 172) seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. The learned Magistrate by an order dtd. 30/4/2016, was persuaded to dismiss the said Application. Thus, the Petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.3003 of 2016. Having regard to the nature of the grievances, which centered around improper investigation and prosecution, by an order dtd. 5/3/2018 in Writ Petition No.3003 of 2016, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, District Sindhudurg, to immediately look into the matter with a direction to file an Affidavit as to how he would deal with the inconsistency in the stand of the investigating agency, as noted by the Court. It was further directed that the evidence which was in possession of the complainant, and neither shown to be seized nor produced before the trial Court, could be considered pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Eventually, by an order dtd. 4/10/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.3003 of 2016 after noting that the Investigating Officer has taken on record the concerned DVDs which were produced by the Applicant by effecting Panchanama dtd. 1/10/2018 and a supplementary chargesheet had also been filed before the learned Magistrate, this Court observed that the grievance of the Petitioner did not survive and, accordingly, the Petition stood disposed of. Having regard to the pendency of the Regular Criminal Case No.72 of 2007, this Court further directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of passing of order.

6. Indisputably, the trial has commenced. The Petitioner preferred