1979 (1) TMI 241 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the second investigation and charge-sheet filed in the Delhi Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court in taking cognizance of the second charge-sheet.
3. Whether the two conspiracies (Ambala and Delhi cases) were the same.
4. The statutory right of the police to investigate further after a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken by the Magistrate.
5. Whether the withdrawal of the case from the Ambala Court and subsequent actions constituted an abuse of process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Second Investigation and Charge-Sheet Filed in the Delhi Court:
The court examined whether the second investigation and the subsequent charge-sheet filed in the Delhi Court were lawful. It was determined that the police had the statutory right and duty to investigate every cognizable offence and that this right did not end with the submission of a charge-sheet under Section 173(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized that the police could continue to investigate if fresh facts came to light, and such further investigation was not barred by the earlier submission of a charge-sheet or the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.

2. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court in Taking Cognizance of the Second Charge-Sheet:
The court held that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the second charge-sheet. It was noted that the police's statutory right to investigate did not require prior sanction from the Magistrate and that the Magistrate's cognizance of the offence did not preclude further investigation by the police. The court referred to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which allowed for continued investigation even after a charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken.

3. Whether the Two Conspiracies (Ambala and Delhi Cases) Were the Same:
The court compared the First Information Reports (FIRs) and charge-sheets of both cases. It found that the conspiracies were not identical. The Ambala case involved a narrower conspiracy between Malik and Mehra to obtain possession of the pillars by cheating and misappropriation. In contrast, the Delhi case involved a broader conspiracy, including the Narang brothers, to export the stolen pillars to London. The court concluded that the two conspiracies were different in scope, objectives, and participants, even though they were related.

4. The Statutory Right of the Police to Investigate Further After a Charge-Sheet Has Been Filed and Cognizance Taken by the Magistrate:
The court affirmed that the police's right to investigate further was not exhausted by the submission of a charge-sheet or the Magistrate taking cognizance. It cited several precedents and the Law Commission's recommendations, which supported the view that the police could continue to investigate if new evidence emerged. The introduction of Section 173(8) in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, further clarified this right by allowing for further investigation and submission of supplementary reports.

5. Whether the Withdrawal of the Case from the Ambala Court and Subsequent Actions Constituted an Abuse of Process:
The court found no evidence of malice or abuse of process in the withdrawal of the case from the Ambala Court and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet in the Delhi Court. It was noted that the withdrawal was done transparently, with the prosecuting agency informing the Ambala Court about the Delhi case. The court concluded that the actions of the investigating agency were lawful and did not constitute an abuse of process.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the legality of the second investigation and the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court in taking cognizance of the case. The court also affirmed the police's right to further investigate even after a charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken by the Magistrate.