Back
2004(3) Supreme 71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi -Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat and Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 472/2004)
Decided on 5-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jitendra Malkan, M. Iqbal Sheikh, Ms. Priya Kiran, P. Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V. Madhukar, Saurab Kirpal, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates.
Held : Coming to the question whether a further investigation is warranted, the hands of the investigation agency or the Court should not be tied down on the ground that further investigation may delay the trial, as the ultimate object is to arrive at the truth. Sub-section (8) of Section 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 cognizance 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 also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. In Om Prakash Narang and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 SC 1791) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during 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 police should inform the Court and seek formal 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, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the Courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law if there is necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. (Paras 11 to 13)
Key Points: - Further investigation is not precluded merely because a court has taken cognizance of an offence (!) (!) . - Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation even without a court direction, and the police may conduct proper investigation after court cognizance (!) . - The court must arrive at the truth and ensure a real, substantial, and effective administration of justice, and undue delay in trial should not bar further investigation if it helps uncover the truth (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. The appellant who is the original complainant in the case relating to FIR No. 134/2003 in the police station. Sub District, Veraval, district Junagadh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. Main prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of appropriate writ for re-investigation by an independent agency. The prayer was made alleging that the local police had succumbed to the pressure exercised by local MLA and the investigation was not carried out in a straight forward manner. It was alleged that on 23.9.2003 around 12.30 a.m. persons belonging to a particular community carried deadly weapons and combustible materials and pursuant to the common object of an unlawful assembly caused destruction of shops belonging to persons of another community, by breaking them open and setting them ablaze. There was also large scale looting of articles. About 53 persons were arrested. Initially, in the FIR various offences including Sections 395 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were noted and mentioned by the police officials. But strangely after a few hours of the registration of the FIR wherein the aforesaid offences were mentioned. Sections 395 and 120B were deleted by the prosecuting agency and because of such deletion the accused persons managed to get bail. The prayer in the aforesaid circumstances was for investigation by an independent investigating agency. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that a bare perusal of the statements clearly indicate the applicability of those provisions and commission of such offences, contrary to what has been stated by the prosecuting agency.
4. The High Court noted that specific allegations were made regarding the biased approach of the police officials under the influence of local MLA. The petition was resisted on the ground that on detailed investigation it was noticed that the offences relatable to Sections 395 and 120B IPC were not made out and, therefore, were deleted. Such a course is permissible in law. The High Court was of the view that if further investigation is necessary the remedy is available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) and further investigation can be carried out under the supervision of the trial Court. Moreover, it was held the police was not the ultimate authority who can decide as to which sections are applicable. Appropriate steps can be taken by the complainant along with the prosecuting agency before the trial Court. Since such remedy was available under the Code, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) was not entertained.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the role of the prosecuting agency from the beginning is tainted with suspicion and visible leaning in favour of the accused persons. There was no urgency to seek deletion of Sections 395 and 120B IPC without full and complete investigation. It cannot be left to the ipse dixit of the investigating officer. That the complainant could approach the trial Court is no reason to gloss over partisan approach and attitude of the prosecuting agency, which was obliged to act independently and ensure that the guilty are brought before Court for appropriate offences though it is for the Court ultimately to find whether they are guilty or not. The High Court has failed to notice that the prosecuting agency was showing unusual interest in protecting the accused persons and, therefore, the scope of the complainant moving the trial Court along with the prosecuting agency is a remote possibility. The prosecuting agency in the circumstances cannot expected to be reasonable or co-operate, fairly and just in order to effectively enforce and maintain law and order.
6.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
