AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led "State Vs. Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu & Drs."; (c) pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present case." Background 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under: i. The present FIR was registered on 07.09.2021 at the instance of one Manoj Gupta who alleged while he and his friend Chaman ('the deceased) were sitting and talking, Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu and Sanjay Singh Pundeer @ Kaku ('the applicant') came. They were carrying a katta and a knife, respectively. ii. It was alleged that thereafter, the said persons, alongwith some other boys surrounded the complainant and the deceased. Ramu shot the deceased with a katta and thereafter, the applicant stabbed him with a knife multiple times. iii. The deceased was taken to the hospital. The MLC of the deceased reflected that he was 'declared brought dead'. iv. The present FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. v. During the course of investigation, all the relevant exhibits were seized and sent to the Forensics ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on record. A sanction order in terms of Section 39 of the Arms Act qua co-accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu for his prosecution under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also filed alongwith the supplementary chargesheet. xv. On 18.04.2023, the second supplementary chargesheet in the present case was filed, by way of which the report of the FSL in relation to DNA analysis of blood samples was placed on record. xvi. On 17.05.2023, an application seeking default bail under Section 167 of the CrPC was filed on behalf of the applicant before the learned Trial Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04(SW), Dwarka vide order dated 07.06.2023, observing as under: "In the present case, investigation with respect to the offences mentioned in the FIR is complete in all respects and prosecution has given the opinion that accused persons are liable for the offences u/s. 302/120B IPC read with 25/27 Arms Act. Only investigation which was not within the control of the 10 and which depends upon the external factors like report from the external agencies was pending and only regarding those reports supplementary charge-sheets have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its examination report dated 30.12.2022, allegedly containing the CCTV footages from the shop of the accused no. 2 i.e. Sh. Kumar Pal Singh, allegedly extracted from the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) marked ad ―HDD‖ The said footage has been sought to be proved for establishing the presence of the petitioner near the scene of crime on the date of incident i.e. 07.09.2021 and can be relevant factor for the trial. 5. Sanction order, if any, u/s 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 qua the petitioner Though no cognizance of any of the offences punishable under Arms Act, 1959 was taken by the courts concerned and would be a factor to adjudicate the charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, that has been wrongly framed against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that at the time the main chargesheet was filed in the present case, the FSL report in relation to all the aforesaid material was awaited and therefore, the chargesheet was incomplete. It was further contended that in order to initiate prosecution under the Arms Act, sanction qua the present applicant in terms of Section 39 of the said Act was required, which admittedly had not been obtained at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1. xv. Lokesh S. v. State & Anr., Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 284/2020. xvi. Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410. xvii. Achpal alias Ramswaroop and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599. xviii. FakhreyAlam v. State of Uttar Pradesh,. xix. Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh,. Submissions on behalf of the State 6. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposed the present application and submitted that the investigation qua the present applicant is complete in all respects. It was submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant which was placed on record alongwith the main chargesheet, including the statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. It was submitted that the weapon of offence, i.e., knife was recovered at the instance of the applicant herein. Statements of eye-witnesses clearly establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. It was submitted that mere non-filing of FSL report does not render the chargesheet inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be. Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution." (emphasis supplied) 10. The fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its co-relation with 167(2) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntary charge sheet before the Hon'ble court. The supplementary charge sheet qua the FSL result is prepared and the same is submitted before the Hon'ble court for taking cognizance." The second supplementary chargesheet dated 18.04.2023 records as under: "Further, the subsequent opinion regarding injuries inflicted to deceased and injuries caused to accused Sanjay Pundir with the weapon of offence "Knife' is yet to be taken and the same is pending. Further, the pen drive containing the viral (CTV footage produced by Pradeep Sherawat has been internally forwarded to the Physics department for examination. The report of which is still pending. The remaining investigation of the present case will be filed before the Hon'ble court through supplementary charge sheet. The supplementary final report of DNA analysis is prepared and the same is being filed before the Hon'ble court of taking cognizance." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770, held as under: "19. A charge-sheet is a final report within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not filed and investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code." (emphasis supplied) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 77, held as under: "16. At this juncture, we may refer to certain dates which are relevant to the facts of this case, namely: (a) 11-3-2012 - The petitioner arrested and remanded to police custody; (b) 25-4-2012 - First charge-sheet filed against the four accused; (c) 1-6-2012 - Supplementary charge-sheet filed in which the petitioner is named; (d) 30-7-2012 - The trial court rejected the petitioner's prayer for grant of bail; (e) 13-9-2012 [Suresh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 3568 of 2012, order dated 13-9-2012 (Bom)] - The High Court confirmed the order of the trial court; (f) 2-10-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the filing of the charge-sheet, but once the charge-sheet was filed, such right came to an end and the accused would be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits." (emphasis supplied) 15. With regard to requirement sanction vis-a-vis default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, in Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh Samra alias Jasbir and Others v. National Investigation Agency, , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain (supra) and held that a chargesheet filed without sanction would not be deemed incomplete. It was held as under: "44. Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been completed. After completing investigation and submitting a final report to the Court, the investigating officer can send a copy of the final report along with the evidence collected and other materials to the sanctioning authority to enable the sanctioning authority to apply his mind to accord sanction. According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all. In case the sanctioning aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e., in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence. (See K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655.) xxx 63. Thus, we answer Issue No. 1 holding that filing of a chargesheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the CrPC and that an accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet. We once again, reiterate what this Court said in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain (supra) that grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the present case, the investigation qua the applicant was complete at the time the first chargesheet was filed, as regards the offences mentioned in the FIR, on 02.12.2021. At the time of filing of the first chargesheet, there wa....
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, weather 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, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation, (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order-for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t sub-Section 8 of Section 173, which begins with a non-obstante clause with a deeming provision interwoven, permits further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-Section 2 has been furnished to the Magistrate. 35. It is settled law that every provision of a statute, in so far as the language permits, have to be read in a manner that each and every provision can be given effect to. If there is a conflict, two provisions have to be harmonized. 36. The decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2013) 5 SCC 762 Vinod Tyagi v. Irshad Ali recognizes the difference between an investigation, a further investigation and a fresh or de novo or re-investigation. The decision highlights that sub-Section 8 of the Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with further investigation and would be of a kind of a previous investigation being continued. The further investigation would relate to discovery of some more evidence pertaining to the same offence. It has to be understood in contradiction to a re-investigation, a fresh investigation or a de novo investigation. The purpose of a further investigation is to bring the true facts before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R has been registered. The FSL report or any other scientific examination would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected by the Investigating Officer and filed alongwith the chargesheet. Collection of a report of the FSL or a scientific expert, would therefore, be covered under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The proposition also finds support from a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in Suraj v. State of Delhi NCT,. In the said case, in an application for default bail in a case under Sections 377/34 of the IPC, while taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, and Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain (supra), the coordinate bench observed and held as under: "13. In the instant case, the Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021. Chargesheet was filed on 14.10.2021, i.e. within the period prescribed by the statutory provision. The material on record indicates that cognizance had not been taken by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that certain clarifications were required with respect to an FSL report which was pending as well as a video recording of the offences allegedly being comm....