Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J
Rahul Pal – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION|CRR 210 of 2023
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The court emphasized that magistrates possess the authority to order further investigation at any stage prior to the trial, including post-cognizance, to ensure justice is served (!) .
The order refusing further investigation at the post-cognizance stage was found to be unjust, and the court mandated a reassessment of the application on its merits (!) .
The revisional application challenging the refusal was allowed, and the order previously passed was set aside (!) (!) .
The court directed the concerned magistrate to reconsider the application for further investigation on its merits and to dispose of it within a specified timeframe, ideally within six months from the communication of the order (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of a fair and just investigation, affirming that the power of magistrates to order further investigation is not limited by the stage of proceedings and should be exercised in accordance with law and the facts of each case (!) .
The order also highlights that the judicial approach should favor thorough investigation when new facts emerge or when justice requires, rather than restricting investigation prematurely or narrowly (!) .
The parties are permitted to act on the court’s order by downloading the official copy from the court’s website, and urgent copies can be issued upon request and compliance with formalities (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to refusal of further investigation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on magistrate's power. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's emphasis on further investigative power. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion on revisional application. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
1. The instant revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2022 corresponding to GR Case No. 53 of 2020 arising out of Santiniketan Police Station Case No. 07 of 2020 dated 16.01.2020 under Sections 341/323/326/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolpur, Birbhum refused an application submitted under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the de facto complainant solely on the ground that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage, relying on some decisions in AIR 2017 (SC) 774, 2013 CrLJ (SC) 754 and 2019 CrLJ (Hyderabad) 149
2. It is needless to mention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not enter into the merit of the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a decision of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1 and submitted that the power under Section 173 (8) can be invoked at all stages of progress of criminal case before the trial actually commences and the judgment relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) and the ratio delineated in those decisions have been overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also submitted that the ratio of the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner actually settled the dispute in question.
5. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce the ratio held in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra), particularly in paragraph
42, which reads as follows:-
“42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri , Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, Vinay Tyagi , and Hardeep Singh; Hardeep Singh having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173 (8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173 (8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrat
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
