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

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
D.C. Gheewala, J.
Sarlaben Virsing Bamaniya and another - Petitioners
versus
State of Gujarat and another -Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 454 of 1988
Decided on 1.9.1988
Mr. D. F. Amin, Advocate- For the Petitioners.
Mr. J.M. Panchal, (P.P.)-For the Respondents (State).

IMPORTANT POINT
Any criminal court has jurisdiction to order further investigation into offence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Deceased murdered by number of persons -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173- Police submitted charge-sheet only against one accused person -Section 209 - Magistrate committed the case to Court of Session-Section 173(8)Deceased's daughters prayed to Sessions Judge to order further investigation - Application was rejected-Section 401Revision petition filed against the rejection order - Question of law-Whether Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to order further investigation? (Yes) – Effect Impugned order set aside. (Paras 1 and 3)

       

JUDGMENT

D.C. Gheewala, J.- The petitioners are the daughters of the deceased, who was allegedly murdered by respondent No.2 and some others. The Police, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet only against respondent No.2. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the present petitioners gave (an application Ex. 5 asking the learned Sessions Judge to order further investigation, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said application, on the ground that under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had powers to impaled a person not named. as an accused, if after going through the evidence he thought it fit, but as the evidence was not recorded, the learned Session Judge thought that the application deserved to be rejected and he accordingly rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present revision application, and the only question which was posed before the Court was as to whether once the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions powers of further investigation given to the Magistrate under sub-clause (B) of section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the Sessions Judge. The answer to the question would clearly be in the affirmative. It was a mistaken impression on the part of the learned Sessions: Judge to have thought that the application was given under section 319 whereas in fact it was an application asking him to further investigate the case, Section 173, sub-clause (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads asunder:

"173. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (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)."

2. The Court solicited the assistance of senior Advocates, who were present in the Court, and sufficient time was granted to them for preparing and assisting the Court, and the learned Advocates M/s. H.K. Thakore, K.L. Abhichandani, B.C. Patel, Anil So Kothari and Nitin Amin as well as the learned Government Pleader Mr. Mayur D. Pandya assisted the Court on all aspects.

3. The main thrust of the argument was that if under sub-section (8) of section 173 the Magistrate has powers to further investigate, or if he had powers to ask the police to further investigate the case then it would not stand to reason that the Sessions Court, which is a superior Court, will not be possessing these powers to ask the police to investigate the case further. The learned Sessions Judge's view that under section 319 on evidence before him he could have imp leaded somebody as an accused, who was not named as an accused, is correct, but his impression that the application was under section 319 was incorrect. The application was in fact under section 173 subsection (8). As stated above, if the Magistrate had powers to investigate the case further, even after the charge-sheet is submitted, and if the police had powers to independently investigate the case further after the charge sheet was submitted, then it would not stand to reason and would not sound logical that the Sessions Judge who was seized of the matter on the matter being committed to him, would not have such powers. The learned Sessions Judge's view that the powers can be exercised only at the stage of inquiry and not at the stage

of trial does not appear to be sound inasmuch as the matter Was adjourned for recording of evidence and before any evidence could be recorded this application Ext. 5 was submitted. If the investigation of the police

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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