9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1130 - SC - Indian LawsWhether in exercise of its powers under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ), the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where there are two reports by the same or different investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court? If so, to what effect? Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short the CBI ) is empowered to conduct fresh / re-investigation when the cognizance has already been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of a police report under Section 173 of the Code?
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Empowerment of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct 'fresh' or 're-investigation' after cognizance has been taken by a competent court based on a police report under Section 173 of the Code. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The primary question was whether the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports when there are two reports by the same or different investigating agencies. The Supreme Court elaborated on the scheme of the Code, stating that the criminal investigative machinery is set into motion by lodging a First Information Report (FIR) and that the police officer can conduct an investigation in any cognizable case without the orders of the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code, and such power is not restricted by the provisions of the Code. The Court analyzed various judgments and concluded that the Magistrate can direct 'further investigation' after filing a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code. It was stated that the Magistrate's power to direct further investigation is significant and should be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases, to achieve the ends of justice. The Court clarified that both the primary and supplementary reports must be read conjointly, and the cumulative effect of the reports and documents annexed thereto must be considered by the Court to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offense. Issue 2: Empowerment of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct 'fresh' or 're-investigation' after cognizance has been taken by a competent court based on a police report under Section 173 of the Code The Court examined whether the CBI is empowered to conduct 'fresh' or 're-investigation' once cognizance has been taken by a competent court. It was held that neither the investigating agency nor the Magistrate has the power to order or conduct 'fresh investigation'. Such an investigation can only be ordered by higher courts in exceptional cases where the investigation is found to be unfair, tainted, or biased. The Court emphasized that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution to direct 'further investigation', 'fresh' or 'de novo' investigation, and even 're-investigation'. The Court reiterated that the power to order 're-investigation' or 'de novo' investigation falls within the domain of higher courts and must be exercised sparingly. The investigation should be fair and proper, and the Court must ensure that the investigation is unbiased, honest, and in accordance with the law. The Court concluded that the trial court must consider the entire record, including both the Delhi Police Report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code and the Closure Report filed by the CBI, to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. Conclusion The Supreme Court modified the order of the High Court and directed the trial court to proceed with the case further in accordance with law. The trial court has three options: it may accept the application of the accused for discharge, direct that the trial may proceed further, or if dissatisfied with any important aspect of the investigation, it may direct 'further investigation'. The Court emphasized that both reports (primary and supplementary) must be considered conjointly, and the decision must be based on the cumulative effect of the reports and documents annexed thereto.
|
