STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 517

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER.pdf

Judgment text

STATE OF A. P. ,) v. A. S. PETER DECEMBER 13, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] )_. Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 36 and 482-Further investigation-Challenged for not obtaining prior permission ofMagistrate-HELD: Law does not mandate taking ofprior permission from Magistrate for further investigation-Carrying outfurther investigation even after filing of charge-sheet is a statutory right ofpolice-Investigation by CID cannot be said to be as taken up by a different agency-CID is a part ofinvestigating agency ofthe State-Order ofHigh Court quashing the criminal proceedings set aside-Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482. A first information reportwas lodged u/ss. 199, 200 and 204 IPC on the ground that the respondent made a false declaration ofthe stock shown in his godown, which was ensured and which caught fire, and inflated the claim in orderto make unlawful gain.

Acharge-sheet, upon completion of the investigation, was filed in the court of Additional MunsifMagistrate, Tirupati. Subsequently, on allegations having been > made regarding the manner in which the local police conducted the investigation, Additional DirectorGeneral ofPolice, CID entrusted the case for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID. An additional charge sheetwas filed against the respondent and two others in the courtofAdditional MunsifMagistrate, Chittoor. The respondent filed an application before theHigh Courtseekingto quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds that prior permission ofthe Magistratewas not obtained for further investigation and the samewas conducted by an entirely different investigatingagency. The High Court allowed the application. Aggrieved, the Statefiled the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court \ HELD:1. 1. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking ofprior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation.

Carryingout further investigation even after filing ofthe charge-sheet is a statutory right ofthe police. Adistinction also exists betweenfurther investigation and re-investigation. Whereas re-investigationwithoutpriorpermission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. [Para5] (521-C,D] 1. 2. Itis not a casewhere investigation was carried out in relation to a separate conspiracy. As allegations had been made against the officer ofalocalpolicestation in regard to the mode and mannerinwhich investigation was carried out, further investigationwas directed. The courtwas informed thereabout. Although, no express permission was granted, but evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary implication as further proceedings in the Court were stayed by the Magistrate. It is also not a case where two chargesheets were filed I beforetwo differentcourts. The Courtdesignated to dealwiththe matters wherein investigation was carried out by the CID, is located at Chitoor.

It is in this situation, the Sessions Judge transferred the case pending in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance offurther offence was also taken by the ChittoorCourt. [Para 12] [524-B, C, D, E] R. P. Kapur andOrs. v. Sardar PratapSingh Kairon andOrs. , (1961] 2SCR143, relied on. State ofBihar andAnr. v. JA. C. Saldanha and Ors. , (1980] 1SCC 554 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004] 13 SCC 292, relied on. 2. In the instant case, it cannot besaid that the investigation was taken up by a different agency. The CID is a part ofthe investigating authorities of the State. Further investigation was directed by the AdditionalDirectorGeneralofPolice. Section36ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a police officer,superiorin rankto an officer in charge of a police station, to exercise the same powers throughout the local area towhich they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits ofhis station.

Itwas, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out or direct further investigation in the matter. [Para 7 and 8] [522-A, B, C] Ram LalNarangv. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 2SCC 322, distinguished. K Chandrasekhar v. State ofKera/a and Ors. , [1998] 5 SCC 223, held inapplicable. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1119of2004. From the final Judgment and Order dated 3. 10. 2002 of the High Court ofJudicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of2000. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant. '\. Nagendra Rai, A. V. Rao, Parnam Prabhakar and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with ajudgment and order dated 3. 10. 2002 passed by the High Court ofJudicature ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of2000 allowing a criminal revision application filed > by the respondent herein. 2.

Respondent (Accused No. 1) carries on business in Red Sanders hard wood and was having a godown at Renigunta in the District of Chittoor. A fire broke out in the said godown on 28/29. 06. 1996 resulting in destruction of red sanders hard wood, undressed wood as also nine cutting machines. ,,\- The said godown was insured. The concerned Forest Officer gave an information to the police station that the respondent had made a false declaration regarding the stock shown in the godown and inflated the same in order to make unlawful gain, whereupon a First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out upon obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate.

A chargesheet was filed upon completion of the investigation in the Court ofIII Additional MunsifMagistrate, Tirupati for alleged commission ofoffence under Sections 199, 200 and 200 of the Indian Penal Cqde: Subsequently, however, as some allegations had been made agains{the manner in which the local police conducted the investigation, the Additional Director General ofPolice, CID entrusted the case for further investigation to the Inspector ofPolice, CID, Prakasam District on S. 11. 1997. Before carrying out the said investigation, the Inspector ofPolice, CID filed a memo in the said Court with the prayer that the matter be adjourned. Although it does not appear that any express permission was granted for carrying out further investigation, the prayer ofadjournment was allowed in terms ofthe said Memo. Further investigation was carried out whereafter an additional chargesheet was filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor for !

offences under Sections 199, 200, 204 and 120 ofthe Indian Penal Code. More accused persons were also added in the chargesheet in the category ofaccused. Indisputably, the case was transferred from the Tirupati Court to Designated Court at Chittoor. The respondent filed an application before the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh for quashing ofthe criminal proceedings inter alia on the ground that prior permission of the Magistrate was not obtained for further investigation as also on the ground that the same was conducted entirely by different investigating agency. learned Single Judge ofthe High Court by reason ofthe impugned order has allowed the said application. 3. Mrs. D.

Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in taking the view that the investigation in question was a fresh investigation or it was imperative on the part ofthe investigating officer to obtain express permission from the Magistrate concerned. Decisions of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi , Administration), [1979] 2 SCC 322 and K. Chandrasekhar v. State ofKera/a and Ors. , [1998] 5 SCC 223 whereupon the High Court relied upon, Mrs. Reddy, would contend, have no application to the facts of the present case. 4. Mr.

Nagendra Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact j that not only a re-investigation was conducted by a different investigating agency, even another case was instituted at a different place without obtaining the prior permission ofthe Magistrate concerned and, thus, the impugned judgment is unassailable in view ofthe decisions ofthis Court in Ram Lal Narang (supra) and K. Chandrasekhar (supra). 5. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking ofprior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing ofthe chargesheet is a statutory right ofthe police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and re- -\ investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. 6. In R. P. Kapur and Ors. v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Ors.

, [1961) 2 SCR 143, this Court laid down the law in the following terms: "... The Additional Inspector General of Police to whom Sethi's complaint was sent was, without doubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge ofa police station. Sardar Hardayal Singh, Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, CID, Amritsar, was also an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge ofa police station. Both these officers could, therefore, exercise the powers, throughout the local area to which they were appointed, as might be exercised by an officer in charge ofa police station within the limits ofhis police station... " A- It was further held: "... Ifthe police officer concerned thought that the case should be investigated by the C. I. D. - even though for a reason which does not appeal to us - it cannot be said that the procedure adopted was illegal... " 7. It is not correct to contend that the investigation was taken up by different agency.

The CID is apart ofthe investigating authorities ofthe State. A further investigation was directed by the Additional Director General ofPolice. Section 36 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1972 ,L empowers a police officer, superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station, to exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits ofhis station. 8. It was, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out or direct further investigation in the matter. 9. This aspect ofthe matter is covered by a decision ofthis Court in State ofBihar andAnr. v. JA. C. Saldanha and Ors. , [1980] 1SCC t· 554, wherein it was held: "19..... This provision does not in any way affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission ofthe report as provided in Section 173(8).

Therefore, the High Court was in error in holding that the State Government in exercise ofthe power ofsuperintendence under Section 3 of the Act lacked the power to direct further investigation into the case. In reaching this conclusion we have kept out ofconsideration the provision contained in Section 156(2) that an investigation by an officer in charge ofa police station, which expression includes police officer superior in rank to such officer, cannot be questioned on the ground that such investigating officer had no jurisdiction to carry on the investigation; otherwise that provision would have been a short answer to the contention raised on behalfofRespondent I. " [See also Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, [2004] 13 SCC 292] 10. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), this Court was concerned with a case where two conspiracies were alleged; one being part of a larger conspiracy. Two investigations were carried out. This Court, while opining 't ".

that further investigation is permissible in law, held that the Magistrate has * a discretion in the matter to direct further investigation, even ifhe had taken cognizance ofthe offence, stating: "... The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceeding before the court is really not ofvery great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court ofany offence.

We think that in the interests ofthe independence ofthe magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests ofthe purity ofthe administration ofcriminaljustice and in the interests ofthe comity ofthe various ' agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts coine to light. " While acknowledging the power ofthe police authorities to carry out further investigation in terms ofSection 173 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, an observation was made therein to the following effect: ~ ".. . In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance ofthe offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 ofthe 1898 Code, the right ofthe police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light.

Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. " 11. Even in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by the police authorities, it was observed: "22. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance ofthe offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 ofthe 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation... " 12. lt is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to C a separate conspiracy.

As allegations had been made against the officer of a local police station in regard to the mode and manner in which investigation was carried out, afurther investigation was directed. The court was informed thereabout. Althoug1'. no express permission was granted, but evidently, such apermission was granted by necessary implication as further proceeding was stayed by the learned Magistrate. It is also not a • case where two chargesheets were filed before two different courts. The Court designated to deal with the matters wherein investigation had been carried out by the CID, is located at Chitoor. It is in the aforementioned situation, the Sessions Judge transfeITed the case pending in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance offurther offence had also been taken by the Chittoor Court. 13. Reliance placed by the High Court as also by Mr. Rai in K. Chandrasekhar (supra) is misplace. d.

Therein investigation had been carried out by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation with the consent ofthe State. However, the State withdrew the same. The question which arose for consideration therein was as to whether it was permissible for the State to do so. The said issue was answered in the negative stating that the investigating officer must be directed to complete the investigation. It was in the aforementioned situation opined: "24. From a plain reading ofthe above section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right of"further" investigation under sub-section (8) but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation''.

That the Government of Kerala was also ~ conscious ofthis position is evident from the fact that though initially ' } it stated in the Explanatory Note oftheir notification dated 27-6- 1996 (quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in public interest to order a "reinvestigation" ofthe case by a special team ofState police officers, in the amendatory notification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a "further investigation of the case" instead of"reinvestigation ofthe case". The dictionary meaning of"further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional; more; supplemental". "Further" investigation therefore is the continuation ofthe earlier investigation and not afresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.

In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion offurther investigationthe investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports-and not fresh report or reports-regarding the "further" -~ evidence obtained during such. investigation. Once it is acceptedand it has got to be accepted in view of the judgment in Kazi Lhendup Dorji-that an investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted under Section 6 ofthe Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and that "further investigation" is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in afurther police report under sub-section (8) ofSection 173, it necessarily mea.. 1s that withdrawal ofconsent in the instant case would not entitle the State Police, to further investigate into . ,> the case.

To put it differently, ifany further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government. Resultantly, the notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and unsustainable in law. In view ofthis finding ofours we need not go into the questions, whether Section 21 ofthe General Clauses ""~ Act applies to the consent given under Section 6 ofthe Act and whether consent given for investigating into Crime No. 246of1994 was redundant in view ofthe general consent earlier given by the State ofKerala. " We do not see any application ofthe said ratio herein. 14. We, therefore, are ofthe opinion that the judgment ofthe High Court cannot be sustained. 15. Mr. Rai submitted that the High Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the respondent in quashing the application.

We have examined the application filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure and are satisfied that the respondent herein only raised the contention of validity of the chargesheet filed upon completion ofthe second investigation. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. RP. Appeal allowed.