( 1 ) PRAGNESH Hariprasad Parikh, applicant, original accused No. 2, has filed this criminal Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the code") with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30. 4. 2007 passed by the City Sessions court in Revision Application No. 176 of 2007. By the impugned judgement the learned Sessions Judge has directed that so far as the present applicant No. 2 is concerned, he should remain present before the Investigating Officer from morning 9. 00 to evening 6. 00 for two days, i. e. on 1. 5. 2007 and 2. 5. 2007 for interrogation. The learned Sessions Judge thereby partly allowed the Revision Application filed by the State against the order dated 5. 4. 2007 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Ahmedabad in CID Crime First crime Register No. 1 of 2006- an application for remand. The learned Chief metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 5. 4. 2007 was pleased to reject the remand application filed by the CID Crime, ahmedabad.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Criminal revision Application are as under:

( 3 ) BHAVANBHAI Nathubhai Desai, original complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") had filed complaint on 17. 10. 2006 through his advocate before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, court No. 13, Ahmedabad. In the said complaint it has been stated as under:

3. 1 There was Natraj Cinema situated on the Ashram Road, Ahmedabad and Dairy den became a tenant of Natraj Cinema and one Shri Harishbhai Fulchandbhai Shah is the owner of the said Dairy Den. The complainant is working as Security Officer of Devanshi Enterprise who is looking after security of the said Dairy Den.

3. 2 He has stated that he was present on his duties at 6 o clock in the morning on 8. 10. 2006. At that time accused Nos. 1 to 9, i. e. namely, (1) Yogendra Ratilal Patel, (2)Pragnesh Hariprasad Parikh, (3) Amit gajjar, (4) Saurabh Desai, (5) Ashok. Mistry. (6) Arvind Mistry, (7) Chetan @ gai, (8) Snehal Hariprasad Parikh, (9) Kokilaben Bhanusinhji Desai came with about 30 to 40 persons to the parlour of dairy Den and two persons placed a revolver on his forehead and dragged him to the backside of Natraj Cinema towards a temple. They told him that if the complainant made a slightest noise, they would kill him. The accused had started demolishing Ice Cream Parlour of the company. At that time the complainant informed accused No. 3 Amitbhai Gajjar that let him inform to the persons of the company. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 informed him to keep mum and did not allow him to telephone. The other person, namely pankajbhai came at about 8 o clock and he was also confined with the complainant.

3. 3 Thereafter, Shri Pankajbhai and the complainant were freed at about 11 o clock and Shri Pankajbhai and the complainant went to the parlour and saw that the fumiture of the parlour, Ice Cream Machine, freeze, Computer, Cash box and other articles with cash amount of Rs. 40,000/-were looted and damage was done. Thereafter, both of them informed their manager Shri Kaushikbhai. He immediately reached the parlour. Then he took them to the factory at Kochrab-Paldi. When they reached there, their security officer bharatsinh told that some unknown persons came with a truck and told that Kaushikbhai had sent them and they threw counter, table, freeze and other articles and ran away with the truck (with all goods ).

3. 4 Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint in writing on 8. 10. 2006 to navrangpura Police Station. The Police station Officer accepted the same but the police has not taken any cognizance. No investigation was made and an offence was also not registered. The police did not respond properly and therefore the complainant was required to file complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate on 17. 10. 2006.

3. 5 It was further stated therein that ail these accused along with 30 to 40