( 1 ) AT the admission stage, since submissions made at length, the matter was heard finally and learned counsels also agreed for final hearing of the matter.

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Asin Pandya for the applicants, learned APP Mr. K. C. Shah for the respondent No. 1 " State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. M. A. Bukhari for the respondent no. 2 " Shri Ismail U. Vohra, were heard at length.

( 3 ) THE present applicants are amongst the accused of Sessions Case No. 199 of 2003 pending before the Court of Sessions i. e. Fast track Court Judge, at Anand, while respondent no. 1 is the State and the respondent No. 2 herein is the witness of the said trial and filed an application at Ex. 245 on 01. 03. 2005. It was contended by such application that the investigation was biased in favour of the accused and was defective and hence re- investigation was necessary. It was stated that the persons affected in the incident were robbed of their valuables as well as cash amount, but the said muddamal has not been attempted to be recovered in the said investigation. It was also contended that the investigating Agency in formal manner inquired from the witnesses and no careful inquiry was made. It was also contended that the statements of witnesses were not recorded as per the say of a particular witness. The investigating agency failed to assess the damage done at the spot. It was alleged that the accused were trying to fabricate false evidence. If, the trial is allowed to proceed further, it would be in the benefit and only in the benefit of the accused. It was also contended further that the witnesses have suffered mental as well as economic loss, even though they have sustained their morale. It was, therefore, urged that the re- investigation in the crime was necessary.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing all the concerned parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as Fast Track Court Judge, on 21. 07. 2005 decided application with a short observation that having considered the complaint, statements of the witnesses and investigating papers as well as evidence recorded during trial, it was in the interest of justice to order re-investigation. It was further directed that not only in respect of muddamal only, but investigating agency must report to other aspects which requires investigation.

( 5 ) THE above said order passed by the learned trial Judge on 21. 07. 2005 is impugned in this criminal Revision Application by the applicants " accused.

( 6 ) AS per the further facts of the case, it appears that the incident in question is an aftermath of Godhra carnage and on 01. 03. 2002 at about 16. 30 hours, a Masjid situated at vasad was put on fire by a mob. The said mob of persons not only damaged the Masjid, but pelted stone etc. on informant as well as upon the witnesses. Many accused were charge- sheeted in respect of this crime registered before Vasad Police Station vide C. R. No. I- 49/2002. The complainant i. e. informant was a constable Harising Noparam Jaat of S. R. P. , group No. 10, Company No. D. After investigation, it appears that charge-sheet came to be filed against many accused and learned trial Judge framed the charge against 53 accused on 16. 06. 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 332,337, 153 (3), 454, 457 and 380 of the indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the bombay Police Act, 1951. The trial was proceeded with, it has been submitted at Bar that out of 96 witnesses cited in the charge- sheet, 85 witnesses have been examined and at that stage an application Ex. 245 came to be filed by the present respondent No. 2.

( 7 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Asin Pandya for the applicants submits that having regard to the stage reached by the trial, it appears that the re-investigation, as directed, would be in violation of double jeopardy principle enunciated in the Constitution of India, because the accused will have to face altogether a new case which is not permissible under the law. Contending f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document