TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a supplementary complaint is maintainable and whether it can be filed without leave of the Court; (ii) whether cognizance is required to be taken again on filing of a supplementary complaint and whether the order dated 2 August 2017 amounted to taking cognizance; (iii) whether the petitioner's custody after 11 August 2017 was illegal, giving rise to a right to bail.
Issue (i): Whether a supplementary complaint is maintainable and whether it can be filed without leave of the Court.
Analysis: A supplementary complaint is not barred merely because the principal complaint has already been filed. Where further investigation yields additional material or implicates additional accused in the same transaction, the material has to be placed before the Court, and the practical method is by way of a supplementary complaint. The Court rejected the extreme view that a second complaint is never maintainable in a complaint case and accepted that, with leave of the Court, a supplementary complaint can lawfully be filed.
Conclusion: The supplementary complaint was held maintainable, but on the basis of leave of the Court for further investigation.
Issue (ii): Whether cognizance is required to be taken again on filing of a supplementary complaint and whether the order dated 2 August 2017 amounted to taking cognizance.
Analysis: Cognizance is of the offence and not of the offender. Once cognizance has been taken of the offence, it is not taken afresh merely because additional material is filed through a supplementary complaint. If the subsequent material only supplements the earlier accusation or brings in further accused in the same transaction, no fresh cognizance is necessary. The order dated 2 August 2017 merely directed tagging of the supplementary complaint with the main complaint and did not involve any illegality.
Conclusion: No fresh cognizance was required, and the order dated 2 August 2017 was not illegal.
Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner's custody after 11 August 2017 was illegal, giving rise to a right to bail.
Analysis: After cognizance, remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be by a judicial order. The entry made on 11 August 2017 was only an administrative noting by the Reader and not a remand order of the Court. As a result, the custody between 11 August 2017 and 31 August 2017 was illegal. Since the bail application and the relevant hearing occurred while the custody was still illegal, the petitioner was entitled to release on that ground.
Conclusion: The custody from 11 August 2017 to 31 August 2017 was illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because the petitioner's detention was held unlawful for the relevant period, and bail was granted with conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case, a supplementary complaint based on further investigation is maintainable with leave of the Court; cognizance is of the offence and not the offender and is not taken afresh on supplementary material that merely supplements the existing case; and custody can be unlawful where remand is not ordered by the Court through a valid judicial order.
TaxTMI 
