2023 Supreme(SC) 442

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - APPELLANT
VERSUS
HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC. - RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1301-1302 of 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NOS. 7628-7630 OF 2017)
Decided On : 28-04-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Further investigation – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help court in arriving at truth and do real and substantial and effective justice.
(2) Principle of double jeopardy would not be applicable to further investigation.
(3) Mere delay in approaching Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing case, though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching final verdict.
(4) Investigation of corruption cases – A superior police officer of rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass order before investigation for such offence is commenced.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) – Further investigation – Prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at truth and do real and substantial justice – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help court in arriving at truth and do real and substantial and effective justice – Further investigation and re-investigation stand altogether on a different footing – Even de hors any direction from court, it is open to police to conduct proper investigation, even after court takes cognizance of any offence on strength of a police report earlier submitted. (Paras 50, 51 and 64)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) – Constitution of India – Article 20(2) – Further investigation – Assurance of fair trial is to be first imperative in dispensation of justice – There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. after final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been accepted – Prior to carrying out a further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for Magistrate to review or recall order accepting final report – Further investigation is merely a continuation of earlier investigation and it cannot be said that accused are being subjected to investigation twice over – Investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of Constitution – Principle of double jeopardy would not be applicable to further investigation – There is nothing in Cr.P.C. to suggest that court is obliged to hear accused while considering application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. (Paras 76, 77 and 86)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 203 – Delay in trial – Criminal offence is considered as a wrong against State and Society even though it has been committed against an individual – Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by State and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay – Mere delay in approaching Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing case, though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching final verdict. (Para 83)

(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 17 and 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Investigation of corruption cases – A superior police officer of rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass order before investigation for such offence is commenced – Before directing such investigation, Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to information and come to an opinion that investigation on such allegations is necessary – If it is case of accused that there is no such order on record, same may be pointed out to trial court in course of trial. It is for trial court to verify record, look into it and take appropriate call on this issue in accordance with law. (Para 88)

Facts of the case:

Principal question of law that falls for the consideration of this Court in present litigation is whether High Court was justified in quashing entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons for the alleged offences on the ground that CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and filed a charge-sheet having once already submitted a final report under sub section (2) of the Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (closure report)?

Findings of Court:

While it is open to a Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before Chief Justice. Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view as done in impugned order. Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Co-ordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable.

Result : Appeals allowed.