Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 880 (AP)

RAVIKRINDI RAMASWAMY v. State Of A. P.

2002-07-16

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2002
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 seek for quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 19 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate court, Chittoor by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. PC. ( 2 ) A brief resume of the background of the facts is necessary. On the intervening night of 28/29-6-1996 at about 3 a. m. , fire broke out in the godown of one A. J. Peter, which resulted in the destruction of red sander heart-wood including 9 cutting machines. The said A. J. Peter gave a report to Renigunta police at 9 a. m. , on 29-9-1996. He is said to have inflated the stocks in the godown. The godown in said to have been insured under three policies with new India Insurance Company Limited for rs. 44. 5 crores. On 27-11-1996 the Forest officer by name Sri Chandrasekar Reddy gave report to the police stating that Al made false declaration regarding stocks stored in the godown in order to make unlawful gain. The police registered it as crime No. 184 of 1996 of Renigunta Police station, investigated, and filed charge-sheet on 17-4-19996 under Sections 199, 200, 204, IPC. The learned III Additional Munsif magistrate, Tirupathi took cognizance of the offence under Sections 199, 200 and 204 of i. P. C. and registered it as C. C. 123 of 1997. It appears on the instructions of the additional D. G. P. C. I. D. , Hyderabad in c. No. 3479/c. 3/cid/96 dated 5-11-1997 the inspector of Police C. I. D. , Prakasam went to Nellore, made fresh investigation into the case which was continued by two more inspectors. He filed additional charge-sheet before the Court of IV Addl. Munsif magistrate, Chittoor. The learned IV Addl. Munsif Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 199, 200, 204 and 420 i. P. C. and registered it as C. C. No. 19 of 2000. The petitioner, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3, assailed the said proceedings taking cognizance by the IV Addl. Munsif magistrate, Chittoor on the ground that the police did not obtain any permission from the Magistrate and also the investigation was made by the agency other than the one that took up investigation. The petitioner, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3, assailed the said proceedings taking cognizance by the IV Addl. Munsif magistrate, Chittoor on the ground that the police did not obtain any permission from the Magistrate and also the investigation was made by the agency other than the one that took up investigation. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the investigation has been properly conducted and it is not a fit case where inherent powers can be exercised. ( 4 ) ADVERTING to the same, the contentions of Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners are twofold in nature. Firstly, he contends that the investigating Officer has not taken permission from the Magistrate before making further investigation as envisaged under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. Reliance is placed by him on the decisions K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2001 , Vijayakumar v. Kamarudhin, 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 381. My attention is also drawn to the decision reported in ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), air 1979 SC 1791 . 2nd contention is that further investigation shall be made by the same agency. ( 5 ) ADVERTING to the same, it is stated in Ram Lal Narang s case (supra) at para 21 as follows:"anyone acquainted with the day-to-day working of the criminal Courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualize a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence but has not proceeded with the equity or trial, he, may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. We should not however be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a Court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court of any offence. We think that in the interest of the independency of the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of the purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light. "it is clear from the above judgment that final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate and final word is sufficient to safeguard against any excess abuse of power of the police to make further investigation. It is clearly stated that they have to inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts came to light. A close scrutiny of the observations clearly show that final word always rests with the magistrate and whenever police wants to make further investigation they have to obtain necessary formal permission. The supreme Court has once again approved the principles laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 2001 and observed at para 25 as follows:"from a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation the police has a right of further investigation under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. That the Government of kerala was also conscious of this provision is evident from the fact that though initially it stated in the explanatory note of their notification dated June 27, 1996 (quoted earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a further investigation of the case instead of reinvestigation of the case. The dictionary meaning of further (when used as an adjective) is additional , more supplemental. Further investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports-and not fresh report or reports- regarding the further evidence obtained during such investigation. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports-and not fresh report or reports- regarding the further evidence obtained during such investigation. Once it is accepted- and it has got to be accepted in view of the judgment in Kazi Lhendup Dorji (1994 AIR scw 2190) (supra) that an investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent and that further investigation is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report under sub-section (8) of Section 173, it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in the instant case would not entitle the State police, to further investigate into the case. To put it differently, if any further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State government. Resultantly, the notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and unsustainable in law. In view of this finding of ours we need not go into the questions, whether section 21 of the General Clauses Act applies to the consent given under Section 6 of the Act and whether consent given for investigating into Cr. No. 246/94 was redundant in view of the general consent earlier given by State of Kerala. "it is clear that the Supreme Court has categorically stated that further investigation shall mean continuation of earlier investigation and not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. It is also observed by the supreme Court that reinvestigation mean wiping out earlier investigation. The Kerala high Court in its decision in Vijayakumar s case (supra) followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in chandrasekhar s case (supra) and stated formal permission has to be taken from the concerned court as envisaged in Section 173 (8) of the Cr. P. C. If that is not taken the complaint is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the present case, no permission has been obtained to make further investigation from the Court which seized of the matter namely the Court of III Add ). P. C. If that is not taken the complaint is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the present case, no permission has been obtained to make further investigation from the Court which seized of the matter namely the Court of III Add ). Munsif Magistrate at Tirupathi. Right to make further investigation is always there if fresh facts come to light and that can only be done after obtaining permission from the concerned Magistrate Court which is seized of the matter. Obviously this has not been done in this case. It goes contra to the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the aforesaid two decisions. It is rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the complaint is bad as Investigating Officer has not taken permission from the concerned Court i uphold the first contention canvassed namely that the complaint is bad for non- taking of permission from the Court to make further investigation. ( 7 ) COMING to the second contention canvassed by the learned senior Counsel that further investigation shall be made by the same agency which has conducted prior investigation, he has placed reliance on the decision reported in Randhir Singh rana v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1997 SC 639 , as well as the decision of kerala High Court in Vijaya Kumar s case (supra ). The Supreme Court in Chandrasekar s case (supra) has categorically stated that further investigation is the continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report and it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in the instant case would not entitle the State police to further investigate into the case. It is also further observed by the Supreme Court that if any further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government and resultantly the notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and unsustainable in law. It is clear from the facts of the case that originally C. B. I. was granted permission and it took over investigation and subsequently notification was issued withdrawing the consent enabling the State police to further investigate. It is clear from the facts of the case that originally C. B. I. was granted permission and it took over investigation and subsequently notification was issued withdrawing the consent enabling the State police to further investigate. The supreme Court has categorically stated that the original agency can only make further investigation and State police cannot investigate which is patently invalid. The same principles apply to the facts of this case. It is clear that originally inspector of Police, Renigunta investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. It is he who has got jurisdiction to make further investigation. C. B. I, cannot be entrusted with such further investigation. There is much force in the contention of the learned senior Counsel that further investigation cannot be entrusted to C. I. D. since the inspector of Police, Renigunta alone has to reinvestigate the case in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme court. ( 8 ) IN view of the upholding of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners I state that the proceedings are invalid and are liable to be quashed in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the above cited decisions, I hold that permission was not obtained from the magistrate to make further investigation as contemplated under Section 173 (8) Cr. PC. Further investigation had to be made by the same agency as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrasekar s case (supra ). ( 9 ) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 19 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional munsif Magistrate, Chittoor are hereby quashed.