SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 2184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
U.C. Banerjee, B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
State of Orissa - Petitioner
Versus
Mahima@ Mahimananda Mishra and Ors. - Respondents
CrA.No. 955 of 2002
Decided On : 16-09-2002

The power of the police to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is not restrictive in nature and is for the sake of the concept of justice.

Headnote:

Further Investigation - Criminal Procedure - Section 173(8) of the Code - [173(8)] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and emphasized that the power of the police to conduct further investigation is not restrictive in nature and has the widest possible amplitude. The court held that the provision is for the sake of the concept of justice and if the interest of justice requires, the further power of investigation has been conferred on to the police under Section 173(8) of the Code.

Fact of the Case:

The state appealed against an order of the Orissa High Court which quashed further investigation by the crime branch on the basis of statements of witnesses available to be examined during earlier investigation, citing abuse of process of court and exercise of power not intended to be exercised under Section 173(8) of the Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the power of the police to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is not restrictive in nature and is for the sake of the concept of justice. The court held that the judgment impugned is erroneous on a reading of Section 173(8) of the Code and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order impugned.

Issues: Interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Code, abuse of process of court, exercise of power under Section 173(8) of the Code

Ratio Decidendi: The power of the police to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is not restrictive in nature and is for the sake of the concept of justice. The provision is for the interest of justice and if the interest of justice requires, the further power of investigation has been conferred on to the police under Section 173(8) of the Code.

Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the order impugned is set aside, and the investigating agency will be at liberty to investigate further as it deems fit and proper in accordance with law.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The state is in appeal against an order of the Orissa High Court which, inter alia, records as below:

    "I am, therefore, of the view that reopening the investigation by examining those witnesses who were examined or available to be examined at the time of earlier investigation and recording their statements almost five and half years after the final form was submitted do not appear to be bonafide and further investigation on the basis of statements of witnesses available to be examined during earlier investigation amounts to abuse of process of court and exercise of power not intended to be exercised under Section 173(8) of the Code. The scope of Section 173(8) of the Code cannot be stretched to that extent. Having observed that further investigation by the crime branch by way of examining these witnesses is not bonafide, I quash further investigation on that ground. However, it shall be open for the investigating agency to make further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code on the basis of such materials which were not available at that time of earlier investigation or not within the knowledge of the investigating agency."

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the state, has been rather emphatic in his submission that the High Court hadn't had the requisite jurisdiction to interfere with an order directing further investigation, since the language of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "The Code") is rather clear and categorical in that regard. Section 173(8) of the Code, for proper appreciation, however, is noticed herein below :

    173 (8) nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub - sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub - section (2).

4. A plain reading of the language itself suggests that the power of the police to conduct further investigation cannot possibly be restrictive in nature and it is of widest possible amplitude. It is in this context Mr. Das placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, wherein this Court in paragraph 16 observed:

    "16. Although the said sub - section does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the court to order further investigation , the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the court. When any such order is passed by a court which has the jurisdiction to do so, it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate it or it can reach a different conclusion. During such extended investigation, the officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back on that track. If they come to the same conclusion, it is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made, and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in trouble. So from any point of view the special judge's direction would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for the High Court to predict that the investigating officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top