2023 (4) TMI 1354 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance upon the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation having once already filed a closure report in the past and the same having been accepted by the court concerned at the relevant point of time? HELD THAT - Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after submitting a closure report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
2. Whether the Special Court could take cognizance upon the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation after a closure report had been accepted.
3. Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 17(Second proviso) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vitiates the entire trial.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Justification of Quashing Prosecution by High Court:
The principal question was whether the High Court was justified in quashing the prosecution by the CBI on the ground that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC was not permissible after a closure report had been filed and accepted. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 173(8) permits further investigation even after the submission and acceptance of a final report. The Court highlighted that further investigation is a continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh or de novo investigation. The Court referred to various precedents, including *Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak* and *State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi*, to affirm that further investigation is permissible and does not require the recall or review of the order accepting the final report.

2. Cognizance by Special Court Based on Further Investigation:
The Court examined whether the Special Court could take cognizance based on a chargesheet filed after further investigation. It was established that the acceptance of a closure report does not bar further investigation and subsequent filing of a supplementary chargesheet. The Court referred to *K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala* and *S. Papaiah v. Union Public Service Commission* to support the view that further investigation can be conducted, and a supplementary report can be filed, which the Magistrate can take cognizance of. The Court reiterated that the objective of further investigation is to bring out the truth and ensure substantial justice.

3. Non-compliance with Section 17(Second proviso) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The issue of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act was raised, arguing that the chargesheet did not include the order passed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, stating that it was not raised before the High Court and is a matter of record. The Court left it to the trial court to verify the compliance with Section 17(Second proviso) during the trial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the CBI, setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The Court ruled that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC is permissible even after the acceptance of a closure report, and the Special Court can take cognizance based on a supplementary chargesheet. The issue of non-compliance with Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act was left to be addressed by the trial court. The trial of the accused persons was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.