Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./11/2025 on 13 March, 2025
Page 1 of 27
GAHC010002352025
2025:GAU-AS:2686
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Criminal Petition No. 11/2025
1. Dhrubajyoti Hatibaruah,
S/o of Arun Hatibaruah,
R/o Vill-Seujia Pathar,
P.O. Machkhowa, P.S. Dhemaji,
District-Dhemaji, Assam.
2. Dr. Hitesh Mazumdar,
S/o of Late Ananga Mohan Mazumdar,
C/o Bhagaban Ch. Das,
R/o No. 2 Mathgharia,
Mother Teresa Road, Near S AI Apartment,
P.O. Noonmati, P.S. Noonmati,
District-Kamrup(M), Pin-781020.
3. Akashee Duwarah,
D/o of H.K. Duwarah,
R/o House No. 141, Ward No. 12, K.B. Road,
Keshab Chandra Goswami Path,
P.S. and District- North Lakhimpur, Assam.
4. Kula Pradip Bhattacharyya,
S/o Hemanta Bhattacharyya,
R/o House No. 7, Udayanpath 2,
Tripura Road, Beltola,
P.S. Basistha, District- Kamrup(M), Assam.
5. Rumir Timungpi,
S/o Mangal Sing Timung,
R/o Rang Mahal Ward No. 6,
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 1
Page 2 of 27
P.S. Diphu, District- Karbi Anglong, Assam.
6. Faruk Ahmed,
S/o Late Mafijuddin Ahmed,
Vill-Shotkhil, P.O. Moranjana,
P.S. Rangia, District- Kamrup, Assam.
7. Kalyan Kumar Das,
S/o Binandi Das,
R/o Garo Basti, 8th Mile,
Back side of Ganesh Mandir, Khanapara,
P.S. - Basistha, District- Kamrup, Assam.
8. Nandini Kakati,
D/o Ripunjay Kakati,
R/o Flat No. 27, Block D, Sashikung Apartment
Survey, Beltola Road, P.S. - Hatigaon,
District- Kamrup, Assam.
9. Anal Jyoti Das,
S/o Binay Kumar Das,
R/o vill-Santinagar,
P.O. - Baladmari,
P.S. and District- Goalpara, Assam.
10. Bikash Sarma,
S/o Narayan Ch. Sarma,
R/o Vill and P.O. - Bamundi,
P.S. Suwalkuchi,
District- Kamrup, Assam.
11. Jayanta Doley,
S/o Late Lolising Doley,
R/o Gogamukh Tajik,
P.O. And P.S. Gogamukh,
District- Dhemaji, Assam.
12. Priyanka Deka,
W/o Bikesh Talukdar,
R/o Vill-Borkuriha,
P.S. Nalbari,
District- Nalbari, Assam.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 2
Page 3 of 27
13. Saurav Pran Sharma,
S/o Suresh Ch. Sharma, Ward No. 2,
Barpeta Road, P.S. Barpeta Road,
District- Barpeta, Assam.
Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
Represented by the P.P. Assam.
2. The Special Investigation Team,
Having its Office at CID, Assam Police,
Dr.Banikanta Kakati Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-781007'
Through the Head SIT-M.P. Gupta (IPS) ADGP, CID.
Respondents
For Petitioner 1. Mr. A. Chowdhury, Senior Advocate.
2. Ms. B. Chowdhury, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Date of Judgment : 13.03.2025.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Chowdhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 3 Page 4 of 27
2. This criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by 13 numbers of petitioners, who are praying for quashing of the Supplementary chargesheet No. 14 dated 12.09.2024, filed in the Special Case No. 02/2017, arising out of the Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam.
3. The petitioners have also impugned the order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in the Special Case No. 02/2017, whereby further investigation was directed in the aforesaid case, after the filing of the Supplementary chargesheet No. 13, dated 20.06.2024.
4. The petitioners have also impugned the order, dated 17.09.2024, passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 02/2017, whereby the said Court took cognizance of offences under Section 109/120B/420/465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the above-named petitioners.
5. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that, on 27.10.2016, one Anshumita Gogoi lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Dibrugarh Police Station, inter alia, alleging that, one Nabakanta Patir Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 4 Page 5 of 27 contacted her and asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for recruiting her to the post of dental surgeon in the selection process conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). It is also stated in the FIR that, while receiving the money, said Nabakanta Patir was caught red-handed by the police.
6. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 was registered under Section 120B/420/463/468/471A/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3/13 (1),(a), (b), (d), (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet No. 3- 2017 was laid in this case on 24.01.2017 against 10(ten) numbers of accused persons under Section 7/8/13 (1), (a),
(b), (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109/120B/420/463/468/471/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. It is pertinent to mention here in that, while submitting the final chargesheet No. 3/2017 on 24.01.2017 against 10(ten) accused persons, the scope of further investigation was kept open by the Investigating Officer and thereafter, 14 numbers of Supplementary chargesheet were laid against different accused persons under various provisions of law.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 5 Page 6 of 27
9. In the meanwhile, on 30.09.2023, the Government of Assam had issued a notification constituting a special team headed by one, Mr. M. P. Gupta, A.D.G.P., C.I.D. to conduct the investigation of Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 in a time- bound manner. After constitution of the Special Investigation Team, one Prateek Thube, IPS., the then Joint Commissioner of Police, (In-charge), Guwahati was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case.
10. In due course, i.e., on 20.06.2024, the SIT submitted Supplementary chargesheet No. 13, naming 4(four) accused persons as accused No. 78-80, in addition to the accused persons, who were already arraigned, in pursuant to the earlier investigations. It is pertinent to mention here in that, in the chargesheet No. 13, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material against 4(four) number of accused persons, namely, Sukanya Das, Wahida Begum, A. Nanda B. Singh and Rakesh Das. With regard to the accused Rakesh Das, the cognizance was already taken by the Special Court on earlier occasion. After perusal of the materials on record and finding prima facie materials against the above-named accused persons, the cognizance of offence under various penal provisions of law, as mentioned in the chargesheet, were taken against 3(three) accused persons, namely, Sukanya Das, Wahida Begum and A. Nanda. B. Singh.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 6 Page 7 of 27
11. In the impugned order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge Assam in Special Case No. 2/2017, it has been observed by the Trial Court ( Special Judge, Assam) that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was directed against 39 candidates, who were selected through combined competitive examinations for 2013 and 2014, however, in the chargesheet No. 13 filed by the Investigating Officer, the column No. 11 of the Charge Sheet was left blank. The column No. 11 of the chargesheet pertains to the name and particulars of the accused persons who are not sent up for the trial.
12. The Trial Court, after perusing the materials available in the Case Diary, concluded that the petitioners' marks in various answer scripts had been unlawfully enhanced in the final tabulation sheet, giving them an unfair advantage over other candidates. The Trial Court found that the petitioners were beneficiaries of this wrongful enhancement of marks, which was done to provide them with an undue advantage in the selection process at the expense of genuine candidates.
13. The learned Special Judge, Assam has observed in the impugned order, dated 24.06.2024, that although the Investigating Officer opined that there was no prosecutable evidence against the petitioners, he also concluded that the said officers had gained entry into service due to the illegal Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 7 Page 8 of 27 enhancement of marks in their selection process. Consequently, he forwarded a copy of the chargesheet, along with details of the irregularities, to the concerned department for appropriate departmental action against them. The learned Special Judge, Assam found the report of the Investigating Officer self-contradictory and disagreed with the findings of the Investigating Officer, as regards the above-named petitioners.
14. The learned Special Judge, Assam also opined that there is scope of making further investigation in the case against the above-named petitioners and directed further investigation accordingly. He also directed the head of the Special Investigating Team to engage a new Investigating Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation.
15. In pursuant to the directions of the Court, a new Investigating Officer, namely, Shri Upen Kalita, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was appointed as the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. After completion of the further investigation, Supplementary chargesheet No 14, dated 12.09.2024, was filed by the Investigating Officer, Shri Upen Kalita, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, wherein, all the above-named petitioners were named as accused.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 8 Page 9 of 27
16. The learned Special Judge, Assam, after going through the chargesheet, as well as the materials available on record, took cognizance of offence under Section 109/120B/420/465/468/471 of IPC, read with section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the above-named petitioners, and issued summons to them.
17. The learned Special Judge, Assam did not find sufficient prima facie materials against 5(five) accused persons, namely, Pranit Anand, Ganapati Roy, Bedanga Bhushan Saikia, Manas Jyoti Das and Smt Manabi Das.
18. Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Trial Court (the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2024, wherein, it directed further investigation against the present petitioners, merely because of the fact that the column No. 11 of the chargesheet No. 13 was left blank. He submits that the filling up of the columns in the chargesheet was merely a ministerial work, and when the Investigating Officer had stated in the chargesheet that no prosecutable evidence/material against the above-mentioned petitioners were found during further investigation, it was wrong on the part of the learned Special Judge, Assam to direct further investigation, only because of the fact that the column number 11 of the chargesheet No. 13 was left blank.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 9 Page 10 of 27
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Judge, Assam by passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 had also committed grave irregularity, as it directed the change of Investigating Officer from that of a Joint Commissioner of Police, to that of an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
20. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam could not have directed that a particular police officer or even an officer of a particular rank should conduct further investigation when such a further investigation is directed. It is against the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in several of its judgments. He submits that the Trial Court erred in directing the substitution of the Investigating Officer of a rank of Joint Commissioner of Police by a much junior officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
21. The learned Senior Counsel submits that issuance of such directions for change of Investigating Officer has been deprecated by the Apex Court in several of its rulings.
22. Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the chargesheet No. 14 dated 12.09.2024, which was submitted against 23 numbers Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 10 Page 11 of 27 of accused persons, including the present petitioners, is bad in law, as the newly appointed Investigating Officer, who was much below the rank of his predecessor, did not conduct any further investigation, much less he could collect any fresh material or additional material and he mechanically submitted the supplementary chargesheet No. 14. He submits that the term further investigation stipulated under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 obligates the Investigating Officer to obtain further evidence, oral or documentary and only then to forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence in the prescribed form, whereas, in the instant case, no such further evidence oral or documentary was collected by the Investigating Officer in the course of further investigation, before submitting the chargesheet No. 14 in the Court.
23. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in the instant case, instead of collecting additional evidence, the Investigating Officer re-evaluated and reassessed the materials already collected by his predecessor and submitted the chargesheet No. 14 on the basis of such re- evaluation, which as per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in such circumstances, lacks investigative rigors and failed to satisfy the requisites of Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He submits that, under such Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 11 Page 12 of 27 circumstances, the Court is not compelled to take cognizance on the basis of such a mechanical report.
24. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Mariam Fasihuddin Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr." reported in "2024 SCC Online SC 58," wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"38. It is a matter of record that in the course of 'further investigation', no new material was unearthed by the investigating agency. Instead, the supplementary chargesheet relies upon the Truth Lab report dated 15.07.2013, obtained by Respondent No. 2, which was already available when the original chargesheet was filed. The term 'further investigation' stipulated in Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the officer-in-
charge of the concerned police station to 'obtain further evidence, oral or documentary', and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form.
39. The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 12 Page 13 of 27 obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) CrPC. What becomes apparent from the facts on record of this case is that the investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate's order dated 24.06.2015."
25. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while submitting the Supplementary Chargesheet No. 14, the Investigating Officer has only reassessed and re-evaluated the materials which were already available with the Investigating Agency at the time of submitting the Supplementary Chargesheet No. 13, on 20.06.2024, in a manner which is unknown to the law. Hence, he submits that Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 13 Page 14 of 27 the Supplementary Chargesheet No. 14 is ex facie illegal and unfeasible in law. He also submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 of the learned Special Judge, Assam is also not tenable in law, inasmuch as without appreciating the chargesheet and without any additional or fresh material having been collected by the Investigating Officer, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners, on the basis of the materials, which were already available in the record, when the chargesheet No. 13 was submitted.
26. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that had there been some materials for taking cognizance, the Special Judge, Assam would have taken cognizance against the present petitioners, when the chargesheet No. 13 was filed, however, same was not done as at that point of time, no sufficient material were there to take cognizance against the petitioners, therefore, he submits that the Trial Court was wrong in taking cognizance against the present petitioners on the basis of same materials on record when the chargesheet No. 14 was filed.
27. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak And Others" reported in "2013 5 SCC Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 14 Page 15 of 27 762" in support of his submission, wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
22. "Further investigation" is where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the executive. It is the continuation of previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as "further investigation". The scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence.
Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the court even if they are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as "supplementary report".
"Supplementary report" would be the correct expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 15 Page 16 of 27 This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a "reinvestigation", "fresh" or "de novo" investigation."
28. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though the above-mentioned petitioners were put under suspension by the Government of Assam, however, the suspension orders of all the petitioners have been stayed by this Court. He further submits that State of Assam had filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench against the order of single judge, staying the suspension of sentence in case of one of the petitioners, however, the said writ appeal (Writ Appeal No.60/2025) has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment, dated 19.02.2025.
29. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has therefore prayed for quashing of the chargesheet No. 14 and setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 as well as 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 02/2017.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 16 Page 17 of 27
30. On the other hand, Mr. D Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 17.09.2024 by taking cognizance of offences against the above-named petitioners, on the basis of materials available on record. He submits that there are sufficient materials available on record to show that the marks, obtained by the petitioners were enhanced, so as to give them undue advantage over the other general candidates.
31. He submits that all the petitioners were beneficiaries of illegal selection by way of enhancement and alterations of marks and there are sufficient materials collected during investigation to substantiate the accusation made against all the petitioners.
32. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the chargesheet No. 14 has been filed against the petitioners, on the basis of materials available on record and the Trial Court was also well within its powers while taking cognizance after receipt of chargesheet No. 14 on the basis of incriminating materials available in the Case Diary against the present petitioners.
33. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that if an Investigating Officer has misconstrued the evidence, which is available on record, there is no bar for a subsequent Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 17 Page 18 of 27 Investigating Officer to file a supplementary chargesheet, on the basis of correct appreciation of the available evidence on record.
34. He submits that merely because one of the Investigating Officer, who was earlier conducting the investigation, misread the available evidence on record, and made observation in the earlier chargesheet exonerating the present petitioners, it would not preclude the Court from taking cognizance of the offence, if there are sufficient materials against the petitioners in the Case Diary, which includes the chargesheet No. 13, i.e., the chargesheet which was earlier submitted by the earlier Investigating Officer. In support of his submission, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cited a ruling of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of "Deepak Dwarkadas Patel and another Vs. State of Gujarat" reported in "1980 Cri. L.J 29."
35. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that whenever a supplementary charge sheet is filed, it has to be read with the earlier chargesheet filed by the investigation and a cumulative effect of reports and documents annexed thereto has to be taken into account before considering the question of, as to whether to take cognizance on the basis of materials available on record or not and whether to frame charges against the accused persons or not. In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cited Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 18 Page 19 of 27 a ruling of Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @Deepak and Others (supra).
36. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the Case Diary of Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016, corresponding to Special Case No. 02/2017, which was requisitioned in connection with this criminal petition.
37. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.06.2024, by which the learned Special Judge, Assam had directed further investigation in respect of the above-named petitioners, it appears that the learned Special Judge, Assam, after considering the materials on record including the Case Diary which was produced before him at the time of filing chargesheet No. 13 by the Investigating Officer, has found that in respect of the petitioners there was enhancement of marks in the final merit list, which gave them undue advantage over the other candidates, who appeared in the combined competitive examination(CCE), as a result of this undue enhancement of marks of the petitioners, some deserving candidates were left out of the final merit list.
38. It appears that while considering the chargesheet No. 13, at that time itself, the learned Special Judge, Assam found Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 19 Page 20 of 27 incriminating materials against the present petitioners, however, instead of taking cognizance at that time, the learned Special Judge, Assam was of the considered opinion that there is a scope of making further investigation in respect of the accused persons against whom, the Investigating Officer did not file the charge sheet. Hence, he had directed the conduct of further investigation in respect of the present petitioners and other accused persons, against whom chargesheet was not laid.
39. The power of the Court to direct further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not disputed. However, question remains as to whether the learned Special Judge was right in directing the head of the special investigating team (SIT) to engage a new Investigating Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation. Although, the Apex Court in the case of "Hemant Dhasmana Vs. CBI" reported in "(2001) 7 SCC 536" has observed that the Special Judge could not direct that a particular police officer or even an officer of a particular rank should conduct further investigation, however, in the instant case, the facts and circumstances ,which are peculiar to this case are to be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether the Special Judge was right or there was any impropriety in directing the further investigation to be Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 20 Page 21 of 27 conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
40. In the instant case, on perusal of the impugned order dated 24.06.2024, it appears that the learned Special Judge, Assam found incriminating materials against the present petitioners, as there was enhancement of marks of the present petitioners to give them undue advantage over other deserving candidates and in spite of the said fact, the Investigating Officer had, while submitting chargesheet No. 13 opined that there is no prosecutable evidence against the petitioners whereas, he had recommended departmental proceeding against the present petitioners, which was considered by the learned Special Judge, Assam to be a contradictory stand on the part of the Investigating Officer, namely, Shri Prateek Thube.
41. This Court is of considered opinion that the learned Special Judge was not wrong in directing further investigation to be conducted by another Investigating Officer as there was a scope to do so under the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards directing the further investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector of police, this Court is of considered opinion that the learned Special Judge, Assam has not directed the investigation to be conducted by a particular police officer, but it left the appointment of Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 21 Page 22 of 27 Investigating Officer on the discretion of the head of the special investigating team constituted by the State of Assam. As regards, the direction in the impugned order that the new Investigating Officer should be a officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above, is not, in the considered opinion of this Court violative of the mandate of the Apex Court as there is a statutory requirement under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to the effect, that Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank is the authorized person to investigate under the provision of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, in mentioning the rank of the police officer to be appointed as the new Investigating Officer, the learned Special Judge, Assam had only reiterated the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 17 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which authorizes an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or of an equivalent rank to investigate any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
42. There is no dispute on the legal proposition that the purpose of further investigation as stipulated in Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to obtain further evidence, oral and documentary and only after receipt of such further evidence, supplementary chargesheet may be laid.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 22 Page 23 of 27
43. In the instant case, on careful perusal of the chargesheet No. 13 and chargesheet No. 14 would reveal that while conducting further investigation, before filing chargesheet No. 14, some new materials were collected, which were not reflected in chargesheet No. 13. For example, one new prosecution witness has been listed in the Chargesheet No. 14, whose name did not figure in Chargesheet No. 13, namely Dr. Gayatri Goswami. Similarly, the FSL report No. DFS 765/2019/212 dated 26.12.2019 mentioned in the Chargesheet No. 14 did not find mention in the Chargesheet No. 13.
44. As to how the supplementary charge sheet should be considered, i.e., whether it is to be read exclusively or conjointly in a cumulative way to give it as a cumulative effect, conjointly with the earlier charge sheets and with the evidence collected during earlier investigation, the Apex Court has observed in the case of "Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak And Others" (supra) as follows:-
"41. Having discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code, now we have to examine the kinds of reports that are contemplated under the provisions of the Code and/or as per the judgments of this Court. The first and the foremost document that reaches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is the first information report. Then, upon completion of Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 23 Page 24 of 27 the investigation, the police is required to file a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will be appropriate to term this report as a primary report, as it is the very foundation of the case of the prosecution before the court. It is the record of the case and the documents annexed thereto, which are considered by the court and then the court of the Magistrate is expected to exercise any of the three options aforenoticed. Out of the stated options with the court, the jurisdiction it would exercise has to be in strict consonance with the settled principles of law. The power of the Magistrate to direct "further investigation" is a significant power which has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 24 Page 25 of 27 applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.
42. Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the court shall discharge an accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code.
45. In view of the above observation, there is no dispute that where multiple supplementary chargesheets have been filed after the primary charge sheet, same are to read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of such reports and documents annexed therewith, to which the Court is expected to apply mind to determine as to whether there exists any ground for taking cognizance against the accused persons. In the instant case, that is what has been done by the learned Special Judge, Assam.
46. After going through the materials available on record, the learned Special Judge, Assam came to the conclusion that there has been enhancement of marks in the final tabulation sheet of the petitioners, and which gave them undue advantage over other deserving candidate, and thus, he found Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 25 Page 26 of 27 prima facie materials to take cognizance of offence under Section 109/120B/420/465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioners, which this Court does not consider to be wrong in any manner.
47. In the instant case, the learned Special Judge, Assam had applied his judicious mind independently on the materials available on record and has found incriminating materials against the above named petitioners and accordingly, took cognizance of offence against the above named petitioners and issued processes to them.
48. This Court is of considered opinion that the learned Special Judge acted well within the limits of his judicial powers and has rightly exercised his jurisdiction to consider the material available on record before taking cognizance against the above-named petitioners.
49. Therefore, this Court, is of considered opinion that the present criminal petition lacks merit and this is not a case where the inherent power of the Courts, may be invoked to disturb the findings of the Trial Court, which were arrived on the basis of the materials available on record.
50. This criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 26
Page 27 of 27
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Crl.Pet./11/2025 Page 27