( 1 ) OUT OF THE TWO who is to be blamed or accused more in the acquittal appeal ? One who is a driver of a tanker, who caused an instanteneous death of two young lads due to the rash and negligent and/or, two - is it the investigating agency which failed to perform its first and foremost elementary duty of establishing the identity of the accused as a person involved in the fatal accident causing the death of the prosecution case also ? And if the aforesaid blame can as well be squarely fixed on the investigating agency then whether mere resort to Sec. 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (dealing with the departmental inquiry and power of the State Government to punish the Police Officer for neglect of duty) by itself is an adequate measure commensurate with the grossness of the negligence of the Investigating Officer. Further whether such a measure by itself can in any way at all help improving face-lifting of the falling standard of investigation ? What then is the way out? these, in short, at the outset, are the indexes to the discussion that is to follow while appreciating the merits of this acquittal appeal.

( 2 ) THIS acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 2 9/09/1980, in Criminal Case No. 27 of 1980, rendered by the learned j. M. F. C. Chotila, wherein the accused-Chhanabhai Mangalbhai, who came to be charged and tried for the offences punishable under Secs. 279, 304a of the I. P. C. read with Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, at the end of the trial was ordered to be acquitted.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY, it was the prosecution case that the alleged fatal accident took place on 13/01/1980 at 18-00 hours near Shuklawadi on way to the village Bamanbore, wherein one Mahesh Mulji along with his companion pillionrider kishor Lalji, were proceeding to Rajkot on a Scooter bearing No. GTR 3369, a Tanker bearing No. GTY 3330 coming to Chotila from the opposite direction, collided with the said scooter and both the scooterist-young boys lost their respective lives on the spot. The accused abandoning the tanker fled the scene of the incident. On the basis of these facts, one Hiralal Ranchhodbhai, a cousin of the deceased filed a complaint at Chotila Police Station for offences under Sec. 279, 304a I. P. C. and under Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939.

( 4 ) IT is further the prosecution case that after the said accident, the accused abandoning his tanker, escaped and on next day that is on 1 4/01/1980 presented himself before Mr. L. H. Desai (who at the relevant time was Sr. P. S. I. Petlad Town Police Station) along with his employer truck-owner, Mr. Thakorbhai Patel and a cleaner Mr. Mohanbhai and reported to him about the alleged accident. He also further informed P. S. I. Mr. Desai that due to fear, he abandoning the tanker had fled from the scene of incident and reported first about the accident to his employer Mr. Thakorbhai Patel, and then had come to the Police Station. The said P. S. I. thereafter recorded the statement of these three persons, prepared a panchnama regarding the physical condition of the accused-driver and arrested him at about 8. 00 hours and them along with the report and under Police bandobast, forwarded him to Chotila Police Station. Ultimately, on the basis of the said complaint, after the investigation was over, the accused came to be chargesheeted to stand the trial before the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. Chotila.

( 5 ) AT the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and total denial.

( 6 ) AFTER duly appreciating the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on two grounds, viz. , (i) neither the identity of the accused as a driver of the Tanker bearing No. GTY 3330, and (ii) nor the rash and negligent driving of the said tanker causing death of two young scooterists were established.

( 7 ) HENCE, aggrieved by the same this acquittal appeal by the State.

( 8 ) MR. R. R. Tripathi, the learned Addl. P. P. while challenging the impu