The court affirmed that a unit of the same investigating agency can conduct further investigation without irregularity, and new evidence can be included as per Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

1. The sixth accused in S.C. No. 1357/2013 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’) to quash the proceedings in the said case.

2. The aforesaid case was originally registered by the Sasthamcotta Police in connection with the attack on a reporter of Mathrubhumi daily on 16.04.2011 by a group of about eight persons and causing serious injuries to him. The investigation in the case was later on handed over to CBI as per G.O.No.164/2011/Home dated 25.07.2011. After the completion of the investigation, the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB, Chennai, laid the final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, on 03.07.2012 against five accused. Later on, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCB, CBI, SPE, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted further investigation and submitted a supplementary final report before the Special Court, on 07.11.2017, arraigning the petitioner herein as the sixth accused.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the Thiruvananthapuram Unit of CBI was not empowered to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC in respect of a case investigated by the Chennai Unit of CBI. Another contention raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the prosecution is that the further investigation was conducted by an officer lower in rank than the officer who had earlier filed the final report. The inclusion of 71 new witnesses in the supplementary final report is pointed out by the petitioner in support of his contention that the further investigation in the case on hand is not in accordance with law. There is also the allegation that the further investigation was conducted with the dubious intention to exculpate the fifth accused by changing the substratum of the original case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI and the learned counsel for the additional fifth respondent.

5. As already stated above, the first challenge of the petitioner against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution in this case is that the Thiruvananthapuram Unit of CBI was not empowered to conduct further investigation in respect of the case investigated and final report filed by the Chennai Unit. There is absolutely no merit in the above contention since it is the very same investigating agency which has conducted the further investigation. The mere fact that the earlier investigation was conducted by another Unit of the same investigating agency cannot be termed as an irregularity or impropriety which would vitiate the prosecution in this case. Likewise, the contention of the petitioner that the Dy. SP of CBI, Thiruvananthapuram Unit who conducted the further investigation was disqualified to continue the investigation which was already conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI Chennai Unit, is also not supported by any authority of law or precedents. There is absolutely no substance in the argument that the inclusion of 71 new witnesses in the supplementary final report was prohibited by law. As per the provisions contained in Section 173(8) Cr.PC, if further evidence, oral or documentary, are obtained in the further investigation, it has to be forwarded to the Court concerned along with a further report. There is undoubtedly no illegality or impropriety in the above course adopted by the investigating agency. The allegation of the petitioner that the further investigation was conducted with the dubious objective of exculpating the fifth accused, also cannot be countenanced in the absence of any material in support of the said allegation.

6. As far as the petitioner/sixth accused is concerned, it could be seen from the supplementary final report that the investigating agency had garnered clinching evidence pointing to his involvement in the crime. The statement of the