IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Versus
K.SASIKALA W/O M.S MOHANAN – Respondents
Decided On : 02-03-2021
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.536 OF 2020
Permission for Further Investigation - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(8)
Fact of the Case:
A case was registered alleging corrupt practices in the purchase of medicines. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed against the respondents for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. The trial court dismissed the application seeking permission for further investigation, leading to the State filing a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it is not mandatory for the investigating officer to seek and obtain permission of the court for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code. However, it is desirable that the investigating officer informs the court and seeks formal permission as a matter of courtesy and propriety. The court directed the trial court to treat the application as due intimation regarding the proposed further investigation.
Issues: The core issue was whether the investigating officer is required to seek and obtain permission of the court for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed various decisions and held that while it is not mandatory, it is desirable for the investigating officer to inform the court and seek formal permission for further investigation as a matter of courtesy and propriety.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the trial court to treat the application as due intimation regarding the proposed further investigation.
ORDER :
1. Is it mandatory for the investigating agency or officer to seek and obtain permission of the trial court for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), after filing final report under Section 173(2) of the Code? This is the core question that arises for consideration in the present case.
2. A case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram as V.C.No.2/2004/SCT alleging commission of corrupt practices in relation to purchase of medicines in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for the year 2003-2004. After completing the investigation, final report was filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram against the respondents for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 120B I.P.C.
3. The court below took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the final report. The applications for discharge filed by some of the accused under Section 239 of the Code were dismissed by the trial court.
4. The second accused made a petition to the Chief Minister of Kerala to issue a direction to the Director, VACB for conducting further investigation in the case. The aforesaid petition was forwarded to the Director, VACB. He ordered the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct further investigation in the case. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, VACB filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case.
5. The trial court dismissed the application filed by the investigating officer seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. The trial court observed that the investigating agency had no case that any fresh facts had come to light or that it had obtained further evidence over and above what was collected or known earlier and therefore, the condition precedent to exercise the right under Section 173(8) of the Code was not satisfied.
6. The State has filed this revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the trial court.
7. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the respondents/accused.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer has right under Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct further investigation and it is not necessary to obtain the permission of the trial court for that purpose. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that, though the application filed by the investigating officer before the trial court contained a prayer for granting permission to conduct further investigation, it was only a formality and the trial court should have granted permission for such investigation or it should have treated the application as an intimation regarding the further investigation proposed to be conducted in the case.
9. Section 173(1) of the Code states that, every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 173(2) of the Code states that, as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the prescribed form stating the particulars prescribed.
10. Section 173(8) of the Code states that, nothing in Section 173 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.
11. The provision contained in Section 173(8) of the Code does not mandate the officer in charge of the police station to seek the p
Antony Scaria v. State of Kerala : 2001 (2) KLT 93
Ram Lal Narang v. State : AIR 1979 SC 1791
State of West Bengal v. Salap Service Station : (1994) SCC (Cri) 1713)
Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala : 2014 (3) KLT 905
State of A.P v. A.S.Peter : AIR 2008 SC 1052
Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar : AIR 2009 SC 2308
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka : AIR 2012 SC 2326
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.