2025 Supreme(SC) 1957

SUPREME COURT OF NDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4970 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10130 of 2025)
Decided On : 20-11-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Crime investigation – When a legislation or a rule does not provide for limitation/time limit for a particular aspect, same is to be governed by standard of reasonable time.
(2) Further investigation – Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission – Since further investigation is being made with leave of Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which court must perform.

Headnote:

(A) Arms Act, 1959 – Section 13(2A) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Illegalities and irregularities in issuance of licenses – Cognizance of offence – Calling for police verification report is mandatory and same is to be sent to Licensing Authority within a prescribed time – Rules did not prescribe a timeline within which police was to submit a report or Licensing Authority is to either grant or deny a license – When a legislation or a rule does not provide for limitation/time limit for a particular aspect, same is to be governed by standard of reasonable time – Investigation in this case took more than a decade to be completed – Licenses issued by appellant were also issued to a fictitious person even at the time when order for further investigation was taken – Appellant has had cloud of criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years – Accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence – On this count, prosecution against appellant is liable to be quashed. (Paras 7, 8, 19 and 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 [Section 218 of BNSS] – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Avowed object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over heads of officials in discharge of their public duty – At the same time, it is not intended to protect officers who have transgressed boundaries of their duty for some act/benefit which otherwise would not be termed acceptable – When allegations are made, it is not for authorities to grant sanction simply on the basis of allegations but it is also that they should examine materials placed by investigating agency and come to a prima facie satisfaction thereon, about the officer having some or other involvement in alleged offence/crime. (Para 12)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 [Section 193 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Crime investigation – Timelines cannot be set in stone for investigation to be completed nor can outer limit be prescribed within which necessarily, investigation must be drawn to a close – There has been evolution in legislative wisdom over the years and criminal procedure have moved from a period of no timelines and minimal judicial interventions/oversight to progressively more oversight and recognition of need to conclude investigations in time – It may be true that no strict timelines are provided in Cr.P.C., but it is equally so that investigations are to be completed in reasonable time – Timely completion of investigation is inherent in Article 21 of Constitution. (Paras 14, 17 and 19)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) [Section 193(9) of BNSS] – Further investigation – Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission – Since further investigation is being made with leave of Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which court must perform – Reasons are indispensable to proper functioning of machinery of criminal law – They form bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in justice system – If Court finds or accused alleges that there is a large gap between first information report and culminating charge-sheet, it is bound to seek explanation from Investigating Agency and satisfy itself to propriety of explanation so furnished. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:

Appellant is aggrieved by the High Court of Judicature at Patna’s refusal in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in terms of judgment and order dated 9th May 2025 [Impugned judgment] passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 62048 of 2023, wherein prayer was to quash and order taking cognizance dated 1st June 2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahasra in connection with Sahasra Sadar P.S Case No. 112 of 2005 dated 24th April 2005.

Findings of Court:

Reasons are not only important in judicial sphere, but they are equally essential in administrative matters particularly in matters such as sanction for they open gateway to greater consequences. Application of mind by authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion.

Result : Appeal allowed.