Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6316
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU
– Appellant
Versus
K.SASIKALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 536 2020
A RAJESH, SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.P.M.RAFIQ, SRI.V.C.SARATH, SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.AJEESH K.SASI, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SMT.POOJA PANKAJ, SRUTHY N. BHAT, SRI.D.KISHORE, SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN, SMT.B.ANUSREE, SRI.K.SIJU, SRI.S.ABHILASH
The court affirmed that under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an investigating officer can conduct further investigation without needing to seek prior court permission.
Headnote:
Investigation - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173(2), 173(8) - The court clarified that the investigating officer has statutory authority to conduct further investigations without court permission post-filing a final report, emphasizing the importance of discovering truth in criminal justice.
Fact of the Case:
A case regarding corrupt practices in a medical college led to an investigation, during which a final report was submitted by the investigating agency. Subsequently, the agency sought permission for further investigation, which the trial court denied, prompting a revision petition by the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erroneously denied permission for further investigation, as the officer is entitled to conduct further investigations under Section 173(8) without needing prior permission from the court, although informing the court is desirable.
Issues: Whether the investigating agency must obtain court permission for further investigation post-filing a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the investigating officer's right to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) is not contingent upon obtaining prior permission from the court, although it is advisable to keep the court informed.
Final Decision: The trial court's order is set aside, allowing further investigation without prior court permission.
O R D E R
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
