Jai Ram. Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

[ajit bharihoke, j.] - code of criminal procedure (cr.p.c) - section 340 - procedure in cases mentioned in section 195 -- that the petitioner came to know that the respondent has authored a book "balwant singh: fun aur shakshiyat" and got it published in 2003. aforementioned application was dismissed by the learned m.m. vide order dated 22nd july, 2009. feeling aggrieved by dismissal of the application under section 340 crpc, the petitioner filed an appeal, which appeal was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge vide order dated 02.01.2010. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, respondent is the author of the book titled "balwant singh: fun aur shakshiyat". learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has referred to the affidavit of the respondent dated 26th february, 2011 filed pursuant to the direction of this court dated 16th december, 2010, wherein she has categorically averred that she never permitted the publisher to bring out second prints of the book after 15th september, 2003 nor the earlier agreement dated 15th september, 2003 has ever been revived with the publisher. learned counsel submitted that from this, it is evident that even the publication of book was part financed by the respondent. learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the book purchased by him in december 2008, which is taken on record. perusal of the book would show this copy of book was reprint of published in the year 2003. petition is accordingly dismissed......court in r. sarala versus t.s. velu and others 2000 u.p. crl. ruling 461. learned counsel for the applicant laid special emphasis on paragraph 10 thereof. i have perused the aforesaid judgment and considered the argument of both the sides. 3. the facts as disclosed in the instant crl. misc. application are different from the facts in the case of r. sarala (supra) and the view taken by the apex court in the aforesaid decision r. sarala (supra) cannot be applied in this case. in the present case after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted for offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 i.p.c. subsequently the police found that on the facts prima facie offence is also disclosed under essential commodities act. the s.o. of the concerned police station through a.p.o. moved an application for conducting further investigation under section 173(8) cr.p.c. the said application has been allowed by a.c.j.m. court no. 12, azamgarh on 16.4.2010 in case crime no. 3641 of 2010, relating to police station nizamabad, district azamgarh which order is under question in the instant crl. misc. application. 4. the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the a.p.o. has no role to play during investigation is not in dispute but the power of the police under section 173 (8) cr.p.c., remains intact which can be utilized by the police. it is no longer affecting a fair trial and merely because the a.p.o. does not have any role to play during investigation will not obliterate or prejudice or in any way restricted the statutory power under section 173(8) cr.p.c. available to the police personnel. 5. the a.p.o. is the custodian and conducts the prosecution. since a.p.o. is adperson in charge on behalf of prosecution to conduct the trial, his power also cannot be curtailed by an unwarranted impediment. judging together, both the powers of a.p.o. as well as of police under section 173(8) cr.p.c. the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant gets negated. in this.....