9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REME COURT] , the three Judge Bench held if the Officer in Charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent upon him to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed. It was held investigation is permissible though reinvestigation is prohibited and to carry out further investigation even after filing of the charge sheet is a statutory right of the police. It held the mere fact there may be further delay in concluding the trial, would not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving truth and to do real, substantial as well as effective justice. The crux of these judgments is it is not mandatory to take prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation even after the filing of the charge sheet as it is the statutory right of the police. The material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected merely because it has been filed at the stage of trial. Right to further investigate - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the right to investigate includes the right to further investigate. Section 156 Cr.P.C. exists prior to the induction of Sub-Section 8 of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is without there being an end to an investigation the learned Special Judge has listed the case for hearing on framing of charges. This act of the learned Special Judge was challenged by the petitioner by moving an application but it was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.02.2021. 3. In this case FIR was registered in the year 2015 and on 11.08.2016 chargesheet was filed wherein it was stated investigation is still going on and a supplementary chargesheet is going to be filed soon. On 08.01.2019 supplementary chargesheet was also filed mentioning investigation is going on. On 06.01.2020 the petitioner herein moved an application for clarification from CBI on this account. The CBI filed a reply stating interalia investigation is still going on and supplementary chargesheet shall be filed soon. It is argued this is against the preposition of law settled by Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the impugned order noted the finding in Vinubhai (supra) ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an Accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (supra) is correct." 8. Further in Arjun Padnitrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others (2020) 7 SCC 1 the Court held as under: "55. In a criminal trial, it is assumed that the investigation is completed and the prosecution has, as such, concertised its case against an accused before commencement of the trial. It is further settled law that the prosecution ought not to be allowed to fill up any lacunae during a trial. As recognised by this Court in CBI v. R.S. Pai, the only exception to this general rule is if the prosecution had "mistakenly'' not filed a document, the said document can be a allowed to he placed on record." 9. It is argued the above judgments were followed in Saroj Bhola vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others 2021 SCC Online Delhi 1497. It relied upon para 42 of Vinubhai (supra). 10. Further reference was made to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others (1985) 1 SCC 260; Suganthisuresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420; Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs Hazara Singh (1975) 1 SCC 794 and Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2019 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is directed to make an application before the concerned Sessions Judge seeking adjournment on the next date. The learned Sessions Judge shall pass appropriate order keeping in mind that the further investigation into the matter is in progress. 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted the trial and investigation cannot go parallel, side by side and if the charges are allowed to be framed then, of course, the investigation should end as later the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill lacunas in its case. Reference was made to para no.16(2) and 16(156) of the first chargesheet and even supplementary chargesheet annexure-P3 viz. para nos.16 and 49 as also para 8 of the status report saying investigation still continues; hence trial should not continue. Para 8 of the status report says: "8. Presently, further investigation of the case is still continuing on the issues of FDI received by M/s Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd (A-4) from M/s Columbia Capital Devas Mauritius Ltd, Port Louis, Mauritius ; M/s Telecom Devas Mauritius Limited, Port Louis, Mauritius ; M/s Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd, Port Louis, Mauritius and M/s Deutsche Telekom Asia Pte Ltd, Singapor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since main issue was different but per law even such an obiter is binding upon the Courts below and there is no second argument for it. However since the main issue in Vinubhai (supra) was different, hence it would also be appropriate to examine some other judgments in this context, which may throw light upon the powers of police to investigate. 23. In State of West Bengal vs. Salap Service Station, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 318 it was held the Magistrate has no power to refuse supplementary chargesheet but to accept the same and would see the consolidated effect of the final report and supplementary reports and then proceed to frame charges. Hence, if the investigation is going on, a supplementary charge sheet is filed, the accused must have the supplementary charge sheet to know the entire case against him since the supplementary charge sheet is also to be considered as a part of the final report viz. the primary report. 24. In Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs. State of Kerala (2012) 7 SCC 407, the three Judge Bench held if the Officer in Charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent upon him to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is necessarily forbidden, whereas further investigation is not. 27. The crux of these judgments is it is not mandatory to take prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation even after the filing of the charge sheet as it is the statutory right of the police. The material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected merely because it has been filed at the stage of trial. 28. Undoubtedly, the right to investigate includes the right to further investigate. Section 156 Cr.P.C. exists prior to the induction of Sub-Section 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. gives an unfettered right to Investigating Agency with no conditions and cannot be restricted in time since such restrictions does not exist in Statute. The Statute does not limit the right to investigate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. only till the trial begun. 29. Though, the argument of the learned senior counsel for petitioner is Vinubhai (supra) is a clear authoritative pronouncement of law and was followed in Tofan Singh (supra) but admittedly Vinubhai (supra) also notes two exceptions i.e. defective investigation or fresh material which may warrant further investigation. 30. Now, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
