2004 (4) TMI 608 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking re-investigation by an independent agency due to alleged biased approach of the local police influenced by a local MLA - HELD THAT - In Om Prakash Narang and Anr. v State (Delhi Admn.) 1979 (1) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the mater by the Courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law if there is necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is accordingly finally disposed of, on the above terms.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to legality of judgment for re-investigation by an independent agency u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Deletion of Sections 395 and 120B IPC by prosecuting agency; Allegations of biased approach of police officials; Role of prosecuting agency in investigation; Scope of alteration of charge during trial u/s Section 228 and Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Necessity of further investigation u/s Section 173(8) of the Code.

Judgment Summary:

The appellant, the original complainant in a case related to FIR NO. 134/2003, challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, seeking re-investigation by an independent agency due to alleged biased approach of the local police influenced by a local MLA. The High Court noted the allegations but held that if further investigation was needed, it could be done under the supervision of the trial Court, as the police was not the ultimate authority to decide applicable sections. The petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution was not entertained, as the remedy was available under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In support of the appeal, it was argued that the prosecuting agency showed a biased approach favoring the accused, leading to the deletion of Sections 395 and 120B IPC without complete investigation. The High Court was criticized for not acknowledging the unusual interest of the prosecuting agency in protecting the accused. The respondents supported the High Court's judgment, stating no infirmity existed to warrant interference.

A direction was given to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, to submit a report on the investigation. The report accepted that the deletion of Section 120B IPC was not proper, and lapses in the investigation were noted. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 120B IPC against three accused persons. The Code allows alteration or addition of charges during trial based on evidence brought on record.

Further investigation was deemed necessary to arrive at the truth, as the investigating agency or Court should not be restricted by concerns of trial delay. The Court highlighted the permissibility of further investigation u/s Section 173(8) of the Code, even without a specific direction from the Court. The necessity of further investigation was emphasized to ensure effective justice and truth-seeking, without final opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of further investigation if required by law, to serve the interests of justice and truth-seeking during trial proceedings.