Back
Supreme Court Of India
STATE OF A.P. - Appellant
Versus
A.S.PETER - Respondent
Appeal (Crl.) 1119 Of 2004
Decided On : 12/13/2007
.
(1961)2 SCR 143, (1980)1 SCC 554, (2004) 13 SCC 292-Relied upon.
(1979)2 SCC 322, (1998)5 SCC 223-Referred to.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over the legality of further investigation conducted after the filing of a charge sheet. The appellant contends that the subsequent investigation was unlawful due to lack of prior permission from the Magistrate and conducted by a different investigating agency (!) .
The respondent argues that further investigation by a different agency is permissible as a statutory right of the police, even after the charge sheet has been filed, and that no prior permission from the Magistrate is required for such investigation (!) (!) .
It is clarified that re-investigation without prior permission is strictly forbidden, but further investigation—an extension or continuation of the initial investigation—is permitted under the law (!) .
The law recognizes the authority of higher-ranking police officers to direct or undertake further investigations within their jurisdiction, including investigations by different agencies such as the CID (!) (!) .
The distinction between "further investigation" and "re-investigation" is crucial. Further investigation is an authorized continuation of the existing investigation, whereas re-investigation without proper authorization is unlawful (!) .
The court emphasizes that the police have the statutory right to conduct further investigation when new information arises, even after a charge sheet has been filed, provided proper procedural steps are followed, including seeking permission from the Magistrate when necessary (!) (!) .
The judgment confirms that investigations conducted by different agencies, such as the CID, are lawful as long as the investigation is directed by authorized officers and within the scope of their powers (!) .
The court notes that the investigation in question was not a fresh or re-investigation but a continuation or further investigation, which is permissible under the law. The implied permission granted by the Magistrate's actions (such as allowing adjournments) supports this view (!) .
The decision clarifies that the withdrawal of consent by the state to a particular investigating agency (e.g., the CBI) does not automatically bar further investigation by that agency if it is a continuation of the original investigation. The law permits the same agency to carry on with the investigation unless explicitly barred (!) .
The court concludes that the High Court's ruling, which deemed the investigation unlawful, was incorrect. The law permits further investigation by authorized agencies as a continuation of the initial investigation, and the procedural requirements were satisfied in this case (!) .
The appeal is allowed, emphasizing that the investigation was lawful as a further investigation and not a re-investigation requiring prior permission, and the proceedings should not have been quashed on this ground (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
S. B. SINHA, J.
( 1 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3. 10. 2002 passed by the High court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of 2000 allowing a criminal revision application filed by the respondent herein.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT (Accused No. 1) carries on business in Red Sanders hard wood and was having a godown at Renigunta in the District of Chittoor. A fire broke out in the said godown on 28/29. 06. 1996 resulting in destruction of red sanders hard wood, undressed wood as also nine cutting machines. The said godown was insured. The concerned Forest Officer gave an information to the police station that the respondent had made a false declaration regarding the stock shown in the godown and inflated the same in order to make unlawful gain, whereupon a First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out upon obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate. A chargesheet was filed upon completion of the investigation in the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati for alleged commission of offence under Sections 199, 200 and 200 of the indian Penal Code. Subsequently, however, as some allegations had been made against the manner in which the local police conducted the investigation, the Additional Director General of Police, CID entrusted the case for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID, Prakasam district on 5. 11. 1997. Before carrying out the said investigation, the Inspector of Police, cid filed a memo in the said Court with the prayer that the matter be adjourned. Although it does not appear that any express permission was granted for carrying out further investigation, the prayer of adjournment was allowed in terms of the said Memo. Further investigation was carried out whereafter an additional chargesheet was filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor for offences under sections 199, 200, 204 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. More accused persons were also added in the chargesheet in the category of accused. Indisputably, the case was transferred from the Tirupati Court to a designated Court at Chittoor. Appellant filed an application before the High Court of Andhra pradesh for quashing of the criminal proceedings inter alia on the ground that prior permission of the Magistrate was not obtained for further investigation as also on the ground that the same was conducted entirely by a different investigating agency. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned order has allowed the said application.
( 3 ) MRS. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in taking the view that the investigation in question was a fresh investigation or it was imperative on the part of the investigating officer to obtain express permission from the Magistrate concerned. Decisions of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration)[ (1979) 2 SCC 322] and K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Others [ (1998) 5 SCC 223] whereupon the High Court relied upon, Mrs. Reddy, would contend, have no application to the facts of the present case.
( 4 ) MR. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that not only a re-investigation was conducted by a different investigating agency, even another case was instituted at a different place without obtaining the prior permission of the Magistrate concerned and, thus, the impugned judgment is unassailable in view of the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal narang (supra) and K. Chandrasekhar (supra ).
( 5 ) INDISPUTABLY, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the chargesheet is
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
