1994 (1) TMI 319 - SC - Indian Laws

Cognizance on supplementary charge-sheet - Whether the supplementary report filed by the investigating agency u/s 173(8) CrPC can be taken on file by the Magistrate or not? - HELD THAT - In the instant case the supplementary charge-sheet mentions that there was a contravention of Direction 12 and whether the same is substantiated or not by sufficient material would be a question which has to be considered at a later stage. At the stage of filing supplementary report itself the trial court which took cognizance cannot reject the same outright since it is only a supplementary report in support of the earlier report. Somehow the Special Court rejected the report without taking it on record holding that no cognizance can be taken since facts do not support offence under Direction 12. There is no question of taking cognizance at this stage since cognizance has already been taken. The purpose of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC is to enable the investigating agency to gather further evidence and that cannot be frustrated. If the materials incorporated in the supplementary charge-sheet do not make out any offence the question of framing any other charge on the basis of that may not arise but in case the court frames a charge it is open to the accused persons to seek discharge in respect of that offence also as they have done already in respect of the offence disclosed in the main charge-sheet. The rejection of the report outright at that stage in our view is not correct. In the result the orders of the Special Court as well as of the High Court are set aside and we direct the Judge Special Court Essential Commodities to receive the supplementary report filed by the investigating agency. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of taking cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency under Section 173(8) CrPC, the rejection of the supplementary charge-sheet by the Special Judge, and the subsequent dismissal of the revision by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Validity of Cognizance of Supplementary Charge-Sheet:
The case involved the question of whether the supplementary report filed by the investigating agency under Section 173(8) CrPC can be taken on file by the Magistrate. The Special Judge had rejected the supplementary charge-sheet, stating that no cognizance of the offence based on it can be taken, despite cognizance already being taken on the main charge-sheet. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 173(8) allows for further investigation after the filing of the main report, and the purpose is to enable the investigating agency to gather additional evidence. The Court emphasized that the rejection of the supplementary report outright at that stage was incorrect, as it was only meant to support the earlier report and further evidence could lead to the consideration of additional charges. The Court directed the Special Judge to receive the supplementary report and allowed the accused persons to seek discharge for the alleged offence mentioned in it.

Rejection of Supplementary Charge-Sheet:
The Special Judge had rejected the supplementary charge-sheet, citing that no cognizance could be taken as the facts did not support an offence under Direction 12 of the Control Order. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose of Section 173(8) CrPC was to facilitate further investigation and gathering of evidence, which should not be frustrated. The Court emphasized that the decision to reject the report outright at that stage was not correct, especially since cognizance had already been taken based on the main charge-sheet. The Court set aside the orders of the Special Court and the High Court, directing the Special Judge to consider the supplementary report and allow the accused persons to seek discharge for the alleged offence mentioned in it.

Dismissal of Revision by High Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the revision filed by the State, stating that no prima facie case had been made out for any violation of the contents of Direction No. 12 of the Control Order as alleged in the supplementary charge-sheet. This dismissal was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court, which ultimately set aside the orders of both the Special Court and the High Court, directing the Special Judge to receive and consider the supplementary report along with any petitions filed by the accused seeking discharge.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, disposed of the case with the provided directions, and emphasized the importance of allowing further investigation and consideration of supplementary reports in accordance with the law.