The main legal point established is that further investigation under S.173(8) Cr.P.C. is permissible and does not require obtaining further evidence. Further investigation is a continuation of the earlier investigation, not a fresh investigation.

G. Sasidharan, J.

Investigation sought to be done by the police in a crime after filing the final report in the court of the Magistrate is objected to by the accused in the crime by saying that re-investigation of the crime after filing final report is not permissible under law. Investigation that is being conducted after filing final report in court is sought to be justified by the State saying that what is being done is further investigation permissible under S.173(8) Cr.P.C. and it is being done on the strength of an order made by the Director General of Police directing that investigation has to be conducted by the C.B.C.I.D., Kottayam. The question which arises for consideration is whether the investigation that is being done is further investigation or it is a re-investigation of the crime. When it is said that reinvestigation of a crime is being done, that can mean that investigation of the crime is commenced afresh wiping out the investigation which had been made before filing of the final report. On the other hand, further investigation can only mean that investigation is commenced from the stage at which it was stopped before filing of the final report and collection of additional materials is made in connection with the allegation regarding commission of the offence.

2. Crime No. 92 of 1997 was registered in Kumali Police Station on the basis of the information given by the 7th respondent on 10.6.1997 at about 11.45 p.m. that her husband the 6th respondent was missing upon 9.6.1997. The crime was registered alleging "man missing". Subsequently, the 5th respondent who was the President of the Panchayat gave a petition to the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Kumali Police Station, stating that on 9.6.1997 by about 10.45 p.m. while the 6th respondent was going to his house, he was forcibly taken away in a jeep and that appellants and 8th respondent were behind the above incident. On 11.6.1997, the 6th respondent came back to Chakkupallam and the 4th respondent recorded his statement and got him medically examined. He was produced in Court and then he was set free.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police submitted a report in court on 11.6.1997 stating that offence punishable under S.365 read with S.34IPC was disclosed to have been committed during the course of investigation. Appellants got anticipatory bail during the course of investigation. On 6.8.1997, the District Superintendent of Police, Idukki passed an order directing handing over of investigation to Sri. Gopinathan Nair, Dy.S.P., Crime Detachment, Idukki who after investigation filed a final report in court dated 24.9.1997 stating that no offence is revealed to have been committed by the accused in the crime.

4. Thereafter, the Director General of Police made an order on 4.11.1997 transferring the crime registered in the Kumaly Police Station to Crime Branch C.I.D. for investigation. Ext. R2(a) is the order of the Director General of Police which says that sanction was accorded to transfer the case in crime No. 92 of 1997 to C.B.C.I.D. for investigation and that Additional Director General of Police, Crimes will takeover investigation of the crime. It is seen from Ext. R2(a) that Sri. R. Radhakrishnan, Dy. S.P., C.B.C.I.D. (Annexe), Kottayam was directed to take over investigation of the case.

5. According to the appellants, re-investigation ordered in the case is illegal and the law does not contemplate such an investigation by a different agency in the absence of any new material obtained by the officer-in-charge of the police station who conducted the first investigation. There is also a statement in the petition that notice under S.173(2) Cr.P.C. was served on the defacto complainant, namely, respondents 6 and 7 after final report was received in the Court. After receipt of notice, respondents 6 and 7 did not come forward to file any complaint in court alleging commission of offence by the appellants. The above fact is pointed out by the appellants