TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside the impugned order dated 22-9-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 3, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 63 of 2008 in so far as it states as follows: It is however clarified that the dismissal of this application shall not preclude the CBI from carrying out further investigation and submit further report against the accused in accordance with law. [B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 not to re-open the case and/or to further investigate or to re-investigate the Case No. RC 36(A)/2000-GNR. [C] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned notices, being notices dated 10-7-2009 and 15-7-2009 issued by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioners. 4. Considering the issue involved in the present case, it may be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in some detail. An offence came to be registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Gandhinagar as Case No. RC 36(A)/2000-GNR on 29th December, 2000 against one Shri M.K. Bhada, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and seven others for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Warehouses in the EOL Refinery premises at Vadinar, for an amount of Rs. 60,031,65,860/- on the plea that they were unable to pay the Customs duty on the Warehoused goods on account of the Bank strike on 25-2-1999 and 26-2-1999. The request was allowed and the cheques for duty were deposited on 25-2-1999 with the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot vide cheques for Rs. 60,03,65,860/- drawn by them on State Bank of Saurashtra, Jamnagar along with another cheque for Rs. 12,00,786/- being bank collection charges. M/s. EOL in their covering letter dated 25-2-99, specifically declared to the ACEO that EOL had sufficient balance in the account to cover the amount of the cheques. Thereafter, Shri P.R. Ashok, General Manager of the EOL, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bonded Warehouse, Jamnagar, requesting him for ordering Customs out of charge for the goods lying in the Open Bonded Warehouse and applied for cancellation of the Bonded Warehouse licence. ACCE, Jamnagar cancelled the said Private Bonded Warehouse Licence of EOL, since no duties and dues were pending as payable by EOL as reported by the said Superintendent in his detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... EOL and on the officers of the Central Excise. 6. The order of the Commissioner of Customs was challenged by the EOL and others before the Central Excise & Gold Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CEGAT). Vide its order dated 27th March, 2003 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.-Mum.)], CEGAT set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, inter alia, holding that the duty shall be treated to have been paid on 25-2-1999, and there was no evasion of duty or wilful misdeclaration. 7. This order of the CEGAT was challenged by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla by way of Appeals (Civil) No. 4299 to 4305 of 2003 before the Supreme Court. 8. It appears that, during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the Investigating Officer, on 8th September 2004, submitted a Final Report (closure report) under Section 173 of the Code before the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Abmedabad, who by order dated 29th October, 2004, accepted the said closure report. 9. It appears that between the time the closure report was submitted before the Special Court and the time when it came to be accepted, the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 7th October 2004 [2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioners that the case has been re-opened in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 4299 to 3205 of 2003. 15. It appears that the petitioners had filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8227 of 2009, inter alia, seeking recall of the previous order dated 13th January 2009 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 2342 of 2008. This Court vide order dated 16th July 2009 dismissed the application with a clarification that none of the observations made in the order dated 13th January 2009 shall affect or impinge upon the right of the applicant to voice their grievance in appropriate proceedings as against any alleged illegality or excess, in the course of investigation or further investigation. 16. Thereafter, the petitioners have moved the present petition praying for the reliefs noted hereinabove. 17. Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the main question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether once upon conclusion of investigation, the investigating agency has submitted a closure report which has been accepted by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the petitioners been pending before the learned Magistrate, and during the pendency of the report if the CBI were to hold a further detailed inquiry and collect other particulars in connection with the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners and then submit a further report, it could be said that further investigation by the respondent CBI is not barred, when the cognizance of the offence is yet to be taken by the Magistrate. But, once pursuant to the final report the Magistrate passes an order accepting the closure report submitted by the CBI, it is a judicial order as the Magistrate has passed the order after applying his mind on the report submitted by the CBI and the proceedings stand terminated. Consequently, unless the said order is recalled, reviewed or set aside by a higher forum, the investigating agency cannot re-open the case and carry out further investigation in connection with the said offence. 20. Attention was invited to the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. dated 10th July, 2009 of the Inspector of Police, CBI, issued in connection with Case No. RC 36(A)/2000-Gandhinagar, to submit that by judicial orders the closure report has been accepted and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a Magistrate receiving a final report has to deal with the final report judicially and in doing so he is not bound by the opinion of the police and if he takes the view that the facts appearing in the final report constitute an offence and there is reasonable ground for putting up the accused on trial, he not only can but must take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and the order passed by him would be a judicial order and not an administrative order. 22. The learned senior advocate also placed reliance upon a decision of the Madras High Court in K. Ramasubbu v. The State and another, 1988 Cri.L.J. 214, wherein on the basis of a complaint registered against the petitioner therein, the complaint was investigated by a Sub Inspector, who had filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court to the effect that no case was made out against the said petitioner and the case was referred to as 'mistake of fact'. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on receipt of the final report and after perusing the connected records, accepted the final report sent by the Sub Inspector and passed the order as follows. Recorded as 'mistake of fact'. Subsequently, the Inspector o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever be the observations of the Supreme Court, the question is whether there is any power to open a case closed by a judicial order. So long as the judicial order stands, investigation cannot be reopened. It was submitted that such permission to reopen the investigation could not have been granted and in fact, has not been granted by the CBI Court. It was submitted that the clear view taken by two High Courts in the decisions referred to hereinabove is that the power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not available once closure report is accepted. 24. Referring to the closure report, it was submitted that complete investigation report with all documents, statements of witnesses etc. was submitted before the learned Special Judge, who after examination of the material on record, passed a judicial order accepting the closure report. That such power is exercised under Section 19(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and it is in the exercise of a judicial function. That once there is a judicial verdict, it cannot be disregarded. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and more particularly paragraph 14 thereof, it was submitted that once the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h permission was granted or clarification was given, the petitioners were entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing. It was, accordingly, submitted that the observations made by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the application seeking permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., cause immense prejudice to the petitioners in whose favour there is a judicial determination and as such, the same is vitiated as being violative of the principles of natural justice. It was, accordingly, submitted that the proceedings of carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are, thus, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law and as such, cannot be permitted to continue and are required to be quashed. 28. The petition was strongly resisted by Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent..... CBI. Attention was invited to the judgment dated 22nd September 2008 rendered by the learned Special Judge and more particularly to the contents of paragraph 9 thereof, wherein it is observed thus: From a bare reading of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., it clearly transpires that the said provision permits further investigati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the provisions of Section 173(8):Cr.P.C. do not contemplate giving the accused an opportunity of hearing before carrying out further investigation. It was, accordingly, submitted that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the proceedings for further investigation. 32. It was further submitted that the contention that upon acceptance of the closure report, the proceedings stand terminated is misconceived, for the reason that it is the final report filed in connection with the offence registered vide Case No. RC 36(A)/2000-GNR before the Gandhinagar Court that has been accepted and the Court had not taken cognizance of the offence, however, the first information report itself has not been quashed and set aside and is still in existence. It was submitted that there was no prayer to quash or cancel the complaint. In the circumstances, the offence still stands and it is well within the statutory powers of the investigating agency to further investigate into the offence and file another report upon conclusion of the further investigation. 33. As regards the closure report submitted by the CBI, it was submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. Antony v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 and more particularly to the contents of paragraph 27 thereof, wherein it has been held that sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive first information reports whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it would be clearly beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C.. any, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. It was submitted that on the same set of facts, detailed investigation was carried out and closure report was submitted and in the circumstances, subjecting the petitioners to investigation once again would cause immense prejudice to them. 35. Next it was submitted that the order of the Supreme Court is dated 7th October 2004, whereas permission of the CBI Court was sought for as late as on 20th June 2008 after a delay of almost 4 years, hence, there was an inordinate delay in again initiating the proceedings and as such further investigation is bad even on the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Customs duty on the goods in question; the date of determination of rate of duty was 25-2-99 which was the date of removal from the warehouse applying the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the warehousing licence has been properly cancelled; the charge of evasion of duty was not established; confiscation of goods under Section 111(j) of the Act was not sustainable; penalty imposed on M/s. EOL, was unsustainable and was set aside; and penalty on the officers of M/s. EOL and officers of Department could not be sustained and were therefore, set aside. 39. The Revenue carried the aforesaid order of CEGAT in appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, on 24-2-2004 the Investigating Officer, viz, the Police Inspector, CBI, Gandhinagar submitted a Final Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. On a close reading of the said report it can be seen that the Investigating Officer has narrated the facts of the case, without so much as referring to the irregularities and illegalities alleged against the accused. After referring to the facts it is stated thus: Investigation has thus revealed that the Custom duty payable on the import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded by the Commissioner were not to be maintained. Only an abrupt conclusion was reached that Sri Thakur and Sri Chaudhaty had absolutely no connection with the acceptance of cheques. There was not even any reference to the allegations regarding accepted, backdating or acting contrary to specific directions. Sri Sharma was given a clean chit in view of the finding recorded about the date on which the receipt of payment has to be taken. Here again the allegations were not considered in the proper perspective. The findings regarding deemed removal are really inconsequential in the present dispute as the very foundation for removal was based on established fraud. Therefore, it is not necessary in the present dispute to go into the question regarding effect of deemed removal. The manipulative roles of respondents 2 to 7 have been clearly established. They were clearly active participants in the well-planned deception and fraudulent acts leading to evasion of duty. They had played major roles in the whole game of fraud and deception. There was clearly willful disregard and deliberate defiance of statutory provisions. Levy of penalty is clearly warranted. Impugned order of CEGAT is set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. KDL/commr/12/2002. In the said order, the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Kandla had upheld the charges raised in the above referred show cause notice and confiscated goods under seizure with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 20 crores, confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 96,26,92,711/- under the proviso to section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalties against M/s. EOL and the officers of the company and the officers of the Customs. The learned senior PP Mr. Sharma and the I.O. have then drawn my attention on the document at serial No. 14 and submitted that the said above referred order at serial No. 13 had been challenged before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Branch at Mumbai vide Appeal No. C/793 to 796 and 700, 701 and 712/2002 Bombay. The CEGAT, had heard the learned advocate of the appellants and the learned consultant of the respondent Commissioner of Customs Kandla and the date of last hearing was 23-1-2002 and then decided the said appeals vide order dated 27-3-2003. I have carefully perused the said order at serial No. 14. The six issues were raised by the CEGAT and their findings are as under: I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, Kandla had been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) vide their order at serial No. 14 dated 27-2-2003. 4. In view of the above evidence on record, I find myself in agreement with the submissions of the learned senior PP Mr. Sharma that the investigation reveals that no prima facie case is made out against the accused more particularly when the CEGAT had given its final verdict referred above and no evidence had been forthcoming to establish that the accused have committed the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, in my view, this report requires to be allowed. 42. Almost immediately after the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered, the Director (Review) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Judicial Cell addressed a communication dated 3rd November 2004 to the Director General, Vigilance bringing the said decision to his notice. Subsequently by a communication dated 24-12-2004 the Director, Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission advised the CBI to re-open the case in the light of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to the said proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Investigating Officer came to know about the order dated 7-10-2004 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said appeals only through letter dated 17-1-2005 from the CBI Gandhinagar, forwarding the CVC's directions to reopen the case in the light of the Supreme Court's order. Though such an argument pleading ignorance about pendency and disposal of appeals by the Honourable Supreme Court, is not palatable, it is pertinent to note that even after coming to know about the same, in utter disregard to the serious observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the CEGAT and restoring the order of the Commissioner of Customs, the Deputy Legal Advisor of the CBI Shri Sharma gave the opinion not to initiate any action against the accused, and the then Director, CBI accepted the said opinion, defying the directions of the CVC to re-look into the matter in view of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Director, CBI took the decision to reopen the case only when second time Office Memorandum was issued by the CVC, and then the Investigating Officer Shri Sharma f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advice of Central Vigilance Commission and order of the Apex Court. The petitioner has shown itself in very poor light in the whole process. 3. Therefore, it is necessary for the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, to consider whether it would be appropriate to hand over the investigation at least now onwards to some more sincere and dedicated team of officers and closely monitor the progress and report of the investigation, in view of the high stakes involved and the history already created Since the observations and remarks made by learned Special Judge are clearly supported by the facts on record and are found to be correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition against them is summarily dismissed. 44. After the dismissal of the aforesaid petition, notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 10-7-2009 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents/articles mentioned therein. After correspondence with the CBI, the petitioners learnt about the aforesaid order passed by this Court and moved an application for recalling the said order dated 13-1-2009. By an order dated 16-7-2009 the application came to be dismissed wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; [d] whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; [e] whether the accused has been arrested; [f] whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; [g] whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. [ii] The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. [3] x x x [4] x x x [5] x x x [6] x x x [7] x x x [8] Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on them the duty of inquiry. In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rules by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Courts to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus.' 51. As noted by the Apex Court in Ram Lal Narang (supra) there was no provision in the 1898 Code prescribing the procedure to be followed by the police, where, after submission of a report under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. and after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, fresh facts came to light which required further inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the Court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the Court took cognisance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department was not satisfied of the propriety or manner and nature of investigation already conducted. 13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi ADmn.) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during the course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the Court and seek for mal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant and desirable and necessary as an ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds on a different footing. The power of the investigating officer to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code at the instance of the State having regard to Section 36 thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 should be considered in different contexts. Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision. Only when cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned Magistrate may have some say. But, the restriction imposed by judicial legislation is merely for the purpose of upholding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It is one thing to say that the Court will have supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation, as had been observed by a Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., correctness whereof is open to question, but it is another thing to say that the investigating officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate. 57. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions cited hereinabove, it is well settled that sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... foreigners they had committed acts prejudicial to the safety and sovereignty of India. During the investigation, certain other persons (appellants in accompanying appeals) were arrested. Thereafter, a DIG of Police, who was the head of the team conducting the investigation, recommended the case for being investigated by the CBI. Pursuant to that recommendation, the Government of Kerala by a notification dated 2-12-1994 accorded its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for further investigation of the case by the CBI. Accordingly, the CBI took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, on 16-4-1996, the CBI filed its report in final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stating that the charges were not proved and were false. Accepting the report, the Magistrate discharged the accused-appellants. Thereafter, on 27-6-1996, the Government of Kerala issued a notification withdrawing the consent earlier given to the CBI to investigate the said case. The object of the said notification was to enable a reinvestigation of the case by team of State Police Officers. By an amendatory notification dated 8-7-1996, the words reinvestigation of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Papaiah and others, (1997) 7 SCC 614, on a complaint made by the UPSC, investigation had been carried out by the CBI and final report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom first information report had been lodged, seeking closure of the case. The CBI in spite of the request made to it by the UPSC did not inform it about the filing of the final report seeking closure of the case. The report was returned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as notice had not been issued to the complainant by the CBI though the CBI had asserted that it had informed the UPSC regarding the filing of the closure report. The final report was resubmitted by the CBI to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate along with a copy of the notice sent by the CBI to the UPSC. It appears that the report was again returned by the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking proof of service of notice on the de facto complainant. While the proceedings of submission of the final report was pending, the UPSC addressed a letter to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation pointing out that the investigation had not been carried out properly and that the filing of the closur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Investigating Officer would be governed by sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his order dated 4-11-1995 cannot be sustained. 64. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that though the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. As held by the Apex Court in the said decision, the provisions of Section 173(8) have been enacted to take care of such like situations also. 65. In N.P. Jharia v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 358 proceedings had been initiated against the appellant therein in connection with possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income. After investigation the Special Police Establishment (SPE) submitted a final report on 1-3-1990 informing the Court that no offence is made out against the appellant. The final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17-4-1990. But on 1-7-1992 SPE submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub-section (2) of section 173 of a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code. 67. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered in cases where final reports had been submitted and accepted, it is apparent that even after 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) Cr.P.C. after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) has been accepted. It is also evident, prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. it is not necessary for the Magistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the observations made by the learned Special Judge clarifying that the dismissal of the application shall not preclude the CBI from carrying out further investigation and submitting further report against the accused in accordance with law. 68. On behalf of the petitioners, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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. 8. In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the High Court for reinvestigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation, there can be further investigation if required under section 173(8) of the Code. The same can be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court. 70. The decision of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra (supra) also will not come to the aid of the petitioners inasmuch as the main issue involved in the said case was as to whether there is any power conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet. The said decision does not lay down any proposition of law; that upon acceptance of final report, no further investigation can be carried out under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The decision of this Court in Kirit M. Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat (supra) also does not carry t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised before the Court was that an additional charge-sheet could be submitted by a Police Station Officer if and only if there was further investigation in the course of which some further evidence, oral or documentary, was available which necessitated the involvement of some more person or persons. The Court held that the legislature had enacted Clause (8) to Section 173 to set at rest the earlier controversy that once a charge-sheet was filed, the police officer has become functus officio. An enabling provision in the form of Section 173(8) is, therefore, inserted. Ordinarily, conceivable occasion for an additional charge-sheet would be the disclosure of some new material and so, while acknowledging and recognizing the police officer's right to submit a fresh charge-sheet those conceivable circumstances are put on the statute. However, those circumstances are enumerative and not exhaustive in character. If the very material is misunderstood by the Police Station Officer and if he has received proper light from his superiors, he can certainly file an additional charge-sheet though there may not be strictly speaking the further investigation and collection of new material. In such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t merit acceptance. It is settled law as held by the Apex Court in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj (supra), that there is nothing in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. Besides, it is settled legal position that it is only after the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence that the accused would come into the picture. Prior thereto, the accused would have no locus standi insofar as the proceedings qua investigation and further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are concerned. 77. To summarize: (i) 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) Cr.P.C. after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) has been accepted. (ii) Prior to carrying out ....