Madhya Pradesh High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Santram on 7 November, 2017
H
ig
h
C
ou
rt
of
M
ad
hy
a
Pr
ad
e sh
M.Cr.C. No.1997/2017
8
sh
Jabalpur dated :7/11/2017
e
Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
ad
The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by
Pr
the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat on 20 th September
2016 whereby the request of CBI for further investigation
a
hy
dated 17 th August 2016 in terms of Section 173(8) of the
ad
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short âthe Codeâ) was
declined. The petitioner has sought further investigation in
M
respect of 11 mobiles which are in the Court's custody. The
of
CBI wanted to conduct forensic examination on the said
mobile. Subsequently, the petitioner moved another
rt
application said to be under Section 451 of the Code which
ou
was also declined on 28th November 2016.
C
None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents
h even though all the respondents stands served. ig Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Supreme Court H Judgment reported as (2008) 5 SCC 413 â Ramachandran Vs. R. Udhayakumar and Others, wherein after filing of report under Section 173(8) of the Code, the Court held that further investigation can be carried out but not reinvestigation. The relevant extract of the order reads as under :-
â7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or re-
sh investigation. This was highlighted by this Court in .K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and others -
e ad (1998) 5 SCC 223. It was, inter alia, observed as follows:
Pr â24. The dictionary meaning of "further" (when a used as an adjective) is "additional; more;
hy supplemental". "Further" investigation therefore is ad the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a M fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.
of In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly rt envisages that on completion of further investigation ou the investigating agency has to forward to the C Magistrate a "further" report or reports â and not h fresh report or reports â regarding the "further" ig evidence obtained during such investigation. H
8. In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the High Court for re-investigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173 (8) of the Code. The same can be done by the CB (CID) as directed by the High Court.â Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to another Judgment reported as (2009)1 SCC 441 â Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein the Court held that even after filing of charge sheet, the State who has sh ultimate supervisory jurisdiction has a right for further investigation. The relevant extract read as under:-
e ad â62. The question can be considered from another Pr angle. If the State has the ultimate supervisory jurisdiction over an investigation for an offence and if it a intends to hand over a further investigation even after hy filing of the charge sheet, it may do so. However, it ad appears from the records that those officers including M the Chief Secretary who were dealing with the public interest litigation were not aware that the charge sheet of had been filed in the earlier case. The State Government and the High Court had proceeded on the basis that the rt investigation was to be handed over to the CBI. The ou High Court came to know thereof only when an C application for modification was filed by the appellants h therein. It may be true that the High Court proceeded on ig the basis that although the CBI had lodged the FIR, the H same would be deemed to have been lodged only for the purpose of carrying out further investigation, but, in our opinion, for the views we have taken, its conclusions are correct.
71. We may, however, observe that the State as in terms of the provisions of the Code and the Act exercises two different and distinct jurisdictions. The power of supervision over investigation vested in the State in terms of Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 is absolute. It may in a given case having regard to the nature and complexity of the offence may also direct that further investigation in the matter may be carried sh out by a central agency. The State in terms of the special statute, viz., the Act can always request the CBI to make an e ad investigation / further investigation. The said power of the State is wholly unrestricted by Section 36 of the Act or Pr otherwise. As a logical corollary if while making preliminary a inquiry pursuant to the notification issued by the State in hy terms of Section 6 of the Act, the CBI comes to know of ad commission of other and further offence involving a larger conspiracy which required prosecution against a large number M of persons who had not been proceeded against at all by the of local police officers, we are of the opinion that even lodging of second FIR would not be a bar.â rt ou In view of the aforesaid judgments, we find that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 20th September 2016 C h declining further investigation in respect of forensic ig examination of 11 mobiles is clearly not sustainable.
H Therefore, the said order and subsequent order dated 28th November, 2016 are set aside. The 11 mobiles be handed over to the petitioner for further investigation in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
sh
Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2017.11.09 01:35:19 -08'00' e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H