http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1119 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of A.P.

RESPONDENT: A.S. Peter

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA,  J :

1.      The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and  dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the High  Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of  2000 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 of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati for  alleged commission of offence under Sections 199, 200 and 200 of the  Indian Penal Code.  Subsequently, however, as some allegations had been  made against the manner in which the local police conducted the  investigation, the Additional Director General of Police, CID entrusted the  case for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID, Prakasam  District on 5.11.1997.        Before carrying out the said investigation, the Inspector of Police,  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 of adjournment was  allowed in terms of the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.  More accused  persons were also added in the chargesheet in the category of accused.   Indisputably, the case was transferred from the Tirupati Court to a  Designated Court at Chittoor.        Appellant filed an application before the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh for quashing of the 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 a  different investigating agency.        A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned  order has allowed the said application.

3.      Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court committed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

a manifest error in taking the view that the investigation in question was a  fresh investigation or it was imperative on the part of the 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 of Kerala and Others  [(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 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 of the Magistrate concerned and, thus, the impugned  judgment is unassailable in view of the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal  Narang (supra) and K. Chandrasekhar (supra).

5.      Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission  from the Magistrate for further investigation.  Carrying out of a further  investigation even after filing of the chargesheet is a statutory right of the  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 Others v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Others  [1961 (2) SCR 143], this Court laid down the law in the following terms:   \024\005The Additional Inspector General of Police to  whom Sethi\022s complaint was sent was, without  doubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer  in charge of a police station. Sardar Hardayal  Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID,  Amritsar, was also an officer superior in rank to an  officer in charge of a 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 of a police station within the limits of his  police station\005\024

       It was further held:

\024\005If the police officer concerned thought that the  case should be investigated by the C.I.D. \026 even  though for a reason which does not appeal to us \026  it cannot be said that the procedure adopted was  illegal\005\024

7.      It is not correct to contend that the investigation was taken up by a  different agency.  The CID is a part of the investigating authorities of the  State.  A further investigation was directed by the Additional Director  General of Police.  Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972  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 of his  station.   

8.      It was, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out or  direct further investigation in the matter.

9.      This aspect of the matter is covered by a decision of this Court in  State of Bihar and Another v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others [(1980) 1 SCC  554], wherein it was held:   \02319.   \005.This provision does not in any way affect  the power of the investigating officer to further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

investigate the case even after submission of the  report as provided in Section 173(8). Therefore,  the High Court was in error in holding that the  State Government in exercise of the power of  superintendence under Section 3 of the Act lacked  the power to direct further investigation into the  case. In reaching this conclusion we have kept out  of consideration the provision contained in Section  156(2) that an investigation by an officer in charge  of a 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 behalf of Respondent 1.\024  

    [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 that further  investigation is permissible in law, held that the Magistrate has a discretion  in the matter to direct further investigation, even if he had taken cognizance  of the offence, stating:

\023\005The criticism that a further investigation by the  police would trench upon the proceeding before  the court is really not of very 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 of any offence. We  think that in the interests of the independence of  the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of  the purity of the administration of criminal justice  and in the interests of the comity of the 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 come to light.\024

       While acknowledging the power of the police authorities to carry out  further investigation in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, an observation was made therein  to the following effect:

\023\005In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate  had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police  report submitted under Section 173 of the 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.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

11.     Even in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by the  police authorities, it was observed:

\02322. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate  had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police  report submitted under Section 173 of the 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\005\024  

12.     It is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to 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, a further investigation was directed. The court was informed  thereabout.   Although, no express permission was granted, but evidently,  such a permission 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 transferred the case pending in the Tirupati Court to the  Designated Court at Chittoor.  Cognizance of further 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 misplaced.  Therein investigation had been carried  out by the Central Bureau of Investigation with the consent of the 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:

 \02424. From a plain reading of the 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 \023further\024  investigation under sub-section (8) but not \023fresh  investigation\024 or \023reinvestigation\024. That the  Government of Kerala was also conscious of this  position is evident from the fact that though  initially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their  notification dated 27-6-1996 (quoted earlier) that  the consent was being withdrawn in public interest  to order a \023reinvestigation\024 of the case by a special  team of State police officers, in the amendatory  notification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that  they wanted a \023further investigation of the case\024  instead of \023reinvestigation of the case\024. The  dictionary meaning of \023further\024 (when used as an  adjective) is \023additional; more; supplemental\024.  \023Further\024 investigation therefore is the  continuation of the earlier investigation and not a  fresh 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 of further  investigation the investigating agency has to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

forward to the Magistrate a \023further\024 report or  reports \027 and not fresh report or reports \027  regarding the \023further\024 evidence obtained during  such investigation. Once it is accepted \027 and it  has got to be accepted in view of the judgment in  Kazi Lhendup Dorji  \027 that an investigation  undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted  under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed,  notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and  that \023further investigation\024 is a continuation of  such investigation which culminates in a further  police report under sub-section (8) of Section 173,  it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in  the instant case would not entitle the State Police,  to further investigate into the case. To put it  differently, if any 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  of this finding of ours we need not go into the  questions, whether Section 21 of the General  Clauses Act applies to the consent given under  Section 6 of the Act and whether consent given for  investigating into Crime No. 246 of 1994 was  redundant in view of the general consent earlier  given by the State of Kerala.\024

       We do not see any application of the said ratio herein.         14.     We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the 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 of Criminal Procedure and are satisfied that the respondent herein only  raised the contention of validity of the chargesheet filed upon completion of  the second investigation.

16.     For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed.