Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pintu Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No. 659/2018
(Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
1
Gwalior
14.2.2018
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for the respondent no.2-CBI.
(1) This criminal revision at the instance of accused persons is directed against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Trial court declining to accept the closure with a direction that the trial shall continue. (2) The trial in question, which is subject matter of Case No.17/14 ST before Fourth Additional Sessions Judge emanates from the FIR lodged with Policed Station Padav, Gwalior on 30/09/2012 that a planning was going on in a Scorpio Vehicle for impersonating in the Police Constable Recruitment Test 2012. On the basis of information police raided the Scorpio vehicle near Vidhi Chandra Dharamshala THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 2 Gwalior, seized incriminating documents under Zero FIR, detained ten persons, thereafter registered Crime No. 648/2012 on 30/09/2012, at Police Station Padav under Section 120B, 419 and 477 IPC. It was revealed during the investigation that MP Police had seized the 37 incriminating documents by raiding the Scorpio vehicle at around 1000 Hrs. including the Scorpio, detained the 10 persons sitting in the Scorpio, and brought 10 persons to the Police Station. All the documents were recovered from the vehicle. On arrival at the PS, a General Diary Entry No. 2045 at 1435 hours was made explaining the circumstances of the raid and thereafter, the instant Padav PS Case No. 648/2012 was registered on the 30/09/2012 against the 10 persons who were arrested u/s 120B, 419 & 477 of IPC vide subsequent General Diary Entry No. 2046 at 1445 hours on the same day. The documents seized by the local police also contained the Test Admit Cards of 31 candidates of PCRT- 2012 and some original Mark sheets, Domiciles certificate, etc. of other persons. Bharat Singh, Constable and Vinod Singh, Head THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 3 Constable of STF, Gwalior were the two witnesses to the seizure memo and also to the Arrest memo prepared later on in respect of the 10 accused persons so arrested at the PS on 30/09/2012 in between 1500 Hrs and 1555 Hrs. (3) The charge-sheet was filed wherein the charges were levelled against the accused persons under Sections 419/120B and 467/120B IPC by order dated 10/04/2015, which came to be challenged by them before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 591/2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05/11/2015. However, with the matter being transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation, the investigation was further continued. That a supplementary report in final form was filed by the CBI on 21/07/2017 proposing closure of the case for want of prosecutable evidence on the ground that :
"(a) There is no entry in the GD showing the departure of the raiding party on 30/09/2012 under SHO, Padav.
(b) There is no entry at 1450 hours on 30/09/2012 showing the departure of STF THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 4 officials from Padav PS which includes the names of two STF staff who witnessed the arrests made in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours. Thus, arrests made are suspicious.
(c) There is no independent witness either to the seizure made at 1000 Hrs or arrests made thereafter in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours on 30/09/2012 despite the arrests having been made from a crowded place.
(d) The Police Station Padav is only about 2 Km away from the alleged place where the accused persons were caught while impersonating. There is a delay in registering the FIR at 1445 Hrs although seizure was made at 1000 Hrs at the spot on Zero FIR.
(e) The conspiracy among the accused could not be proved during investigation. No seizure has also been made from any of the 9 other accused persons.
(f) No suspicious financial transactions have taken place among the accused persons during the relevant period, as revealed from the scrutiny of their bank accounts.
(g) The evidence of the owner and the driver of Scorpio vehicle have contradicted the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 5 allegations leveled by the Local Police. They were not examined by the Local Police.
(h) Planning for commission of offences u/s 419 and 477 of IPC is not an offence as no evidence of any overt or covert action taken by any of the accused persons was found for commission of the alleged offences.
(I) Out of the 37 items seized from the possession of accused Pintu Singh including the Scorpio, 31 items were the Admit cards of the candidates for PCRT Examination, 2012 and 13 them appeared in the said examination from different centers at Bhind, Morena and Gwalior, but failed. This fact disproves the allegation that accused Pintu Singh was planning to impersonate from Gwalior with other. Out of 18 candidates who did not appear from the different Centers, some were supposed to appear from the centres at Bhind, Morena also.
So the arrested accused persons who were detained at Gwalior at 1000 Hrs could not have reached those places from Gwalior by 1100 Hrs when the examination was going to start.
Therefore, there is no evidence of impersonation beyond reasonable doubt.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 6
(j) All the 11 Pws cited in the Charge sheet by the Local Police are only Police Officials which cast serious doubt on the fair investigation conducted by Local Police."
(4) The Trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the case has been committed for trial and taking aid of sub- section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. declined to accept the final report on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of investigating agency after the committal of the case to cause a fresh investigation and submit closure report. This order is being challenged on the ground that the trial Court grossly erred in discarding the closure report.
(5) Considered the submissions.
(6) Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure envisages:
"(8) Nothing in this section 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 7 or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2)."
(7) Close reading of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure reveals that though a further investigation by the investigating agency is permissible, however, unless there is a specific order directing investigating agency for a fresh investigation it is beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to have initiated a fresh investigation in absence of a specific order by the Court. Sub-section (8) of section 173 contemplates presentation of further evidence after charge-sheet has been submitted on completion of investigation. (8) Dwelling upon the scope of sub-section (8) of Section 173 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pal and another, AIR 2002 SC 1644, it is observed THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 8 by their Lordship:
"7.......... Further, the scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. "
(9) In the case at hand the action of Central Bureau of Investigation in submitting the closure report after the trial has commenced on the basis of fresh investigation cannot be said to be in consonance with the provisions contained under Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., in our considered opinion the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the same and directing the continuation of trial. (10) Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pawar/-
Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR
Date: 2018.02.20 13:15:24 +05'30'