9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to direct further investigation after taking cognizance of a case. 2. Whether the investigating officer can conduct further investigation even after the Court has taken cognizance of the matter. 3. Interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding further investigation post taking cognizance. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an Accountant, faced allegations of misappropriation under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation upon an application by the prosecution, despite the petitioner's objection. The petitioner contended that once cognizance is taken, the Court lacks jurisdiction to direct further investigation. 2. The Court clarified that Section 173(8) allows for additional investigation even after cognizance is taken. Referring to past judgments, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing further investigation to uncover new evidence, ensuring fairness to both prosecution and defense. 3. Citing the case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna, the Court highlighted that the power to direct investigation post-cognizance is distinct from the method of investigation. The Court also addressed the misconception highlighted in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh, emphasizing that Section 173(8) empowers the Court to order further investigation as necessary. 4. Relying on previous decisions, the Court affirmed the Magistrate's authority to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) even after taking cognizance. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the investigating officer becomes functus officio after submitting a charge-sheet, emphasizing the importance of ongoing investigation to serve justice. In conclusion, the Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to order further investigation, emphasizing the necessity and legality of such actions under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.
|
