2017 (2) TMI 1539 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope and purport of Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure - High Court interfered with the order of the Magistrate permitting further investigation by the police in the case and ordered for expeditious disposal of the trial. Whether it was permissible for the investigating officer or the officer-in-charge of the police station to undertake a further investigation even after the filing of the charge sheet? HELD THAT - It noted as well that Under Section 173(2)(i) the officer in-charge as soon as the investigation is completed is required to forward to the Magistrate empowered a report in the prescribed form so as to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence based thereon. This Court also adverted to Section 190 enumerating the modes of taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate as specified therein either upon receiving a complaint of facts which constituted such offence or upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence had been committed. In the conspectus of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure traversed this Court held the view that an informant who lodges the first information report does not fade away therewith and is very much concerned with the action initiated by the officer in-charge of the police station pursuant thereto so much so that not only a copy of the said report is to be supplied to him free of cost and in case no investigation is intended he has to be notified of such decision. The reason in the contemplation of this Court for the officer in-charge of a police station to communicate the action taken by him to the informant and a report to the Magistrate Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was that the informant who sets the machinery of investigation into motion was required to know what was the result of the exercise initiated on the basis thereof as he would be vitally interested therein and hence the obligations cast by law on the officer in-charge. This Court recounted its observations in Ram Lal Narang 1979 (1) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT to the effect that on the Magistrate taking cognizance upon a police report the right of the police to further investigate even under the 1898 Code was not exhausted and it could exercise such right often as necessary when fresh information would come to light. That this proposition was integrated in explicit terms in Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the new Code was noticed. The desirability of the police to ordinarily inform the Court and seek its formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light was stressed upon to maintain the independence of the judiciary the interest of the purity of administration of criminal justice and the interest of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such dispensation. After referring to Section 156(3) in particular and Section 190 Code of Criminal Procedure this Court reverted to Section 173 and ruled that a very wide power was vested in the investigating agency to conduct further investigation after it had filed its report in terms of Sub-section (2) thereof. It held on an elucidation of the contents of Section 173(8) that the investigating agency was thus competent to file a report supplementary to its primary report and that the former was to be treated by the Court in continuation of the latter and that on an examination thereof and following the application of mind it ought to proceed to hear the case in the manner prescribed. It was elaborated that after taking cognizance of the offence the next step was to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code unless the Court found upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith that there did exist no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in which case it would discharge him on reasons to be recorded in terms of Section 227 of the Code - The view of this Court in AMIT KAPOOR VERSUS RAMESH CHANDER ANR. 2014 (1) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT underlining the obligation of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith to form an opinion as to whether there did exist or not any sufficient ground to proceed against an Accused was underlined. From the issues sought to be answered in this decision and having regard to the overall text thereof it is not possible to discern that the power of the Magistrate even at the post cognizance stage or after the Accused had appeared in response to the process issued the suo motu power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation was intended to be expounded thereby. Significantly the adjudication was essentially related to the pre-cognizance stage. On an overall survey of the pronouncements of this Court on the scope and purport of Section 173(8) of the Code and the consistent trend of explication thereof we are thus disposed to hold that though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval no such power is available therefor to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report process has been issued and Accused has entered appearance in response thereto - the un-amended and the amended Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code if read in juxtaposition would overwhelmingly attest that by the latter the investigating agency/officer alone has been authorized to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. This power qua the investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifesting heralded the amendment significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. The direction for investigation by the Magistrate Under Section 202 while dealing with a complaint though is at a post-cognizance stage it is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such a direction for investigation is not in the nature of further investigation as contemplated Under Section 173(8) of the Code. If the power of the Magistrate in such a scheme envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure to order further investigation even after the cognizance is taken Accused persons appear and charge is framed is acknowledged or approved the same would be discordant with the state of law - Not only such power to the Magistrate to direct further investigation suo motu or on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the Accused person appears pursuant to the process issued or is discharged is incompatible with the statutory design and dispensation it would even otherwise render the provisions of Sections 311 and 319 Code of Criminal Procedure whereunder any witness can be summoned by a Court and a person can be issued notice to stand trial at any stage in a way redundant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Trial Court to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The timing and appropriateness of filing an application for further investigation.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. The role and powers of the Magistrate in directing further investigation post-cognizance.
5. The impact of judicial precedents on the scope of further investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Trial Court to Order Further Investigation:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Trial Court was within its competence to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had previously set aside the Trial Court's order for further investigation, stating that neither the informant nor the accused could claim a direction for further investigation as a matter of right after the charge sheet was filed. The High Court emphasized that such power is vested in the investigating officer or the officer-in-charge of the police station, not the Trial Court.

2. Timing and Appropriateness of Filing an Application for Further Investigation:
The High Court noted that the application for further investigation was filed at the closing stages of the trial, specifically when the case was fixed for final arguments. The High Court observed that the informant had ample opportunity to scrutinize the document in question earlier but waited for more than two years to request further investigation. This delay was deemed inexplicable and indicative of a lack of defective investigation necessitating further inquiry.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of Section 173(8), which allows further investigation by the police even after the submission of a charge sheet. The Court noted that the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India recommended that the police should be able to examine new evidence and submit further reports to the Magistrate. The High Court, in its decision, held that while further investigation by the police is permissible, the Magistrate cannot direct such an investigation on their own or on the request of the informant after taking cognizance of the offence.

4. The Role and Powers of the Magistrate in Directing Further Investigation Post-Cognizance:
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate does not have the power to order further investigation suo motu or on the request of the informant after taking cognizance of the offence and the appearance of the accused. This power is reserved for the investigating agency, which may seek the Magistrate's permission for further investigation if new evidence emerges. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 173(8) was to empower the investigating agency, not the Magistrate, to conduct further investigation at any stage of the proceedings.

5. The Impact of Judicial Precedents on the Scope of Further Investigation:
The Supreme Court referred to various judicial precedents to elucidate the scope of further investigation. It cited cases such as Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) to highlight that the police retain the right to further investigate even after submitting a charge sheet. The Court also noted that the Magistrate's power to direct further investigation is limited to the pre-cognizance stage and cannot be exercised after the accused has appeared in response to the process issued.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Trial Court erred in allowing the application for further investigation filed by the informant. The Court emphasized that the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) lies with the investigating agency, not the Magistrate, once cognizance has been taken and the accused has appeared. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's order for the expeditious disposal of the trial was maintained.