Further investigation without prior court permission is valid under Section 173(8) of CrPC, and such investigation does not violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

ORDER :

N.MALA, J.

(1) This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the order dated 21.05.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.6022/2025 in CC.No.97/2023, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, allowing the application filed by the CBI to accept the supplementary charge sheet dated 03.12.2024 on record.

(2) The facts in brief, are as follows:-

(3) The respondent registered a case in No.RC 231 2022 S 0001, on 25.11.2022, against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence of sharing, collecting, seeking, browsing, downloading, exchanging and distributing materials depicting children in sexually explicit act, in electronic format. On the basis of the input received from the judicial authorities of Republic of Germany, and after completion of the investigation, a preliminary charge sheet was filed by the respondent on 20.012023, against the petitioner for the alleged offence u/s.67B of the IT Act, 2000, keeping further investigation open under Section 173[8] of Cr.P.C., to find out the source of CSAM found in the possession of the petitioner, involvement of any other persons in the offence of possessing/transmitting/exchanging CSAM and money trail etc. The charge sheet was taken on file in CC.No.97/2023 by the learned Magistrate and the charge was framed against the petitioner . Upon completion of further investigation, the respondent filed Crl.MP.No. 6022/2025, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, for accepting the supplementary charge sheet on 03.12.2024, along with oral and documentary evidence and the material objects. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by the Court below on 21.05.2025. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, the petitioner has filed the above revision for the aforesaid relief.

(4) The petitioner in the grounds in support of the revision petition contended that the respondent police, without getting any order or prior permission from the Court, conducted the investigation and filed the petition for accepting the supplementary charges and even the Court allowed the same overlooking that prior permission for investigation was mandatory. The petitioner further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, failed to note that the petition was not filed in a proper manner and by proper authority and therefore, ought to have rejected the same. The petitioner contended that after the commencement of the trial and when the case was posted for examination of the Investigating Officer [LW6] and on closure of all evidences, the petition was filed with a view to drag on the proceedings and to harass the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that he was subjected to the investigation twice for the same offence and hence, his rights under Article 20[2] of the Constitution, were offended. The petitioner therefore submitted that the order dated 21.05.2025, accepting the supplementary charge sheet dated 03.12.2024, was illegal, aribitrary, unsustainable in law and deserved to be set aside.

(5) The respondent filed a counter in the revision petition wherein it was contended inter alia that in the charge sheet dated 30.12.2022, the right to conduct further investigation u/s.173[8] of Cr.P.C., was kept open to ascertain the source of CSAM [Child Sexual Abuse Material] found in possession of the petitioner, involvement of any other person in possessing, transmitting CSAM and money trail, if any, relating to exchange and transmission of CSAM. The respondent contended that further investigation was conducted on the above aspects and pursuant to the further investigation, the supplementary charge sheet came to be