Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Crl. M.P No. 5115 of 1981

Judges

Natarajan, J.

Acts

S. 36(a) of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act read with Rules 3 and 7
sub-section (8) of S. 173, Cr. P.C
sub-section (2)(i) of S. 173
Section 173 of the Code
Section 173, Cr. P.C

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition arises from criminal proceedings in C.C. 592 of 1980 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri. The two petitioners are accused 1 and 2. The first petitioner was a Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Armed Reserve whose services were terminated on 19-8-1979 for participating in a police strike but later reinstated. On 8-8-1980 he was placed under suspension because a criminal case was pending. The Pennagaram Police Station registered Crime No. 98 of 1980 for theft and illegal transport of sandalwood billets; a charge-sheet (No. 101/1980 dated 25-10-1980) was filed against four persons (now accused 3–6) under S.36(a) of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act read with Rules 3 and 7 of the Sandalwood Illicit Possession and Transport Rules. That charge-sheet was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate who issued summons to the four accused.

Subsequently, the Inspector of Police filed a second/revised charge-sheet (No. 7/81 dated 27-1-1981) alleging that the two petitioners (accused 1 and 2) had joined with the original four accused in a criminal conspiracy dated 3-4-1980 to steal sandalwood from patta land in Erabiyanahalli Village. The Magistrate took cognizance of the revised charge-sheet and issued process to the petitioners. At that stage the petitioners filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against them.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an investigating officer is entitled to file a revised or supplementary charge-sheet without having conducted any further investigation (i.e., whether a second charge-sheet can be filed on the basis of the same materials already in the possession of the police), having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C.
Whether, even if a revised charge-sheet can be filed, the evidence against the petitioners was so weak or artificial that the Magistrate could not have reached the requisite prima facie satisfaction to take the case on file and issue summons to them (i.e., whether the proceedings should be quashed for lack of prima facie evidence).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' (Mr. D. Krishnan) Arguments

The Investigating Officer was not entitled to file a revised charge-sheet without conducting further investigation; reliance was placed on sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C., interpreted to require additional investigation and evidence before a supplementary charge-sheet could be submitted.
Even if the police could file a revised charge-sheet, the evidence against the petitioners (particularly the second petitioner) was so weak and artificial that the Magistrate could not have formed the requisite prima facie satisfaction to issue summons; therefore the proceedings should be quashed.
Implicitly: if evidence existed later, the proper course for the Court was to use its power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons during trial rather than permitting the police to expand the charge-sheet without further investigation.

Public Prosecutor's Arguments

The police are entitled to reopen investigation and file further reports or revised charge-sheets when fresh facts or evidence come to light; a line of authorities permits multiple investigations and further charge-sheets under Section 173 in appropriate circumstances.
The decisions cited by the Public Prosecutor were advanced to show established case law that further or additional charge-sheets are permissible where additional evidence or information is discovered (or where investigation is reopened), and that the number of investigations is not limited by law.
In the present matter, the Superintendent of Police, on reviewing the investigation records, directed the Inspector to include the petitioners in a revised charge-sheet — a factual basis relied on by the prosecution to justify the revised report.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Reshamlal v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri LJ 976	Held that a supplementary charge-sheet cannot be submitted by the police without further investigation and without obtaining further evidence.	The Court considered this decision but stated disagreement with its view in the present case and did not follow it.
Mohindar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Lah 103 : (1932 (33) Cri LJ 97)	Held that the number of investigations is not limited by law and that a new investigation may be begun on fresh information after one has been completed.	Cited by the Public Prosecutor as supportive of police power to conduct further investigations; the Court noted such cases, but observed that many involve fresh investigation resulting in new evidence.
Start Chandra v. State (Prosecuting Inspector v. Minaketan), 1952 Cri LJ 1635 : AIR 1952 Orissa 350	Police have a right to reopen the investigation even after submission of a charge-sheet under Section 173 if fresh facts come to light.	Cited by the Public Prosecutor; Court treated it as part of decisions showing police may reopen investigation when fresh facts emerge, but distinguished many such cases from the present where no fresh investigation occurred.
Rama Shanker v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 All 525 : 1956 Cri LJ 1037	There is nothing in the Code to prevent submitting another report in supersession of an earlier one if further investigation yields additional evidence.	Cited as authority for filing another report upon further investigation; Court noted the principle but observed many of these authorities involved further investigation.
Raghunath Sharma v. State, (as cited) AIR 1952 Orissa 350; AIR 1963 Pat 268	To the same effect as cases permitting another report when further evidence is gathered on further investigation.	Recognised as consistent with the line of cases allowing re-investigation and further reports when additional evidence emerges; Court considered it part of that body of authority.
Raman Narayanan in re, 1973 Mad LJ (Cri) 16 : (1973 Cri LJ 1288) (Ker)	Held that if a police officer, after laying a charge-sheet, gets further information he can investigate further and lay further charge-sheets.	Cited by the prosecution; Court viewed it as supportive where additional information/further investigation occurs.
Ram lal Narang v. State of Delhi (Admn.), (1979) 2 SCR 923 : (1979 Cri LJ 1346)	Supreme Court held that a further investigation by the police cannot be considered as trenching upon the proceedings before Court.	Cited by the Public Prosecutor for the proposition that further police investigation does not interfere with court proceedings; Court noted the decision as part of the authorities allowing further investigation.
Hanumantha Gowd v. Official Receiver, AIR 1946 Mad 503	Held that a police officer who had filed a final charge-sheet excluding one person could thereafter file a charge-sheet against that person without disclosing that he had received any further information.	The Court found this authority supportive of allowing a second charge-sheet without fresh investigation and accepted its ratio for the present case.
D.D. Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1980 Cri LJ 29	Held that it is not necessary to conduct a fresh investigation or discover new material to lay an additional charge-sheet if the material already on record was misunderstood by the Station Police Officer and proper light from superiors justifies an additional charge-sheet.	The Court expressly agreed with this ratio and relied on it to reject the petitioners' first contention that a second charge-sheet was impermissible without fresh investigation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the two central contentions in turn.

On whether a revised charge-sheet may be filed without further investigation: The Court analysed Section 173 of the Code and observed that the provision does not specify that only one charge-sheet may be filed. Section 173(2)(i) merely requires that when investigation is completed the officer-in-charge must forward the prescribed report to the Magistrate. Section 173(8) was enacted to make explicit that further investigation may be made and further reports forwarded if additional evidence is obtained.
The Court reasoned that Section 173 does not either expressly empower or prohibit filing a revised charge-sheet on the basis of the same materials as the first report; nor does it limit the number of reports. The Court emphasised the practical consequence: if a second report were disallowed because the police had erred in omitting particulars in the first report, competent persons might escape trial because of police mistakes. Thus the Court held that the police could file another or revised report to correct mistakes or omissions in the original report, even if no fresh investigation occurred, particularly where the second report aims to remedy an omission or error.
The Court reviewed relevant authorities. It stated that many decisions cited by the prosecution supported reopening of investigation and filing of revised reports where fresh investigation revealed new evidence. The Court distinguished those authorities from the present case insofar as they typically involved further investigation. However, it found two authorities (Hanumantha Gowd and D.D. Patel) directly supportive of the proposition that an additional charge-sheet can be filed without formal fresh investigation where the earlier omission or misunderstanding is corrected — and expressly agreed with those ratios.
On the submission that the Magistrate should instead use Section 319, Cr.P.C. to bring in other persons during trial: the Court accepted that Section 319 is available to the trial court but held that the existence of that power does not deprive the police of the authority to file a revised charge-sheet when, on the basis of available materials (or on directions from superiors), it is appropriate to array more accused.
On the sufficiency of evidence against each petitioner: the Court analysed the material on record. As to the second petitioner (the wife): the only material was that the husband obtained Rs.1,300 from her and handed it to others with instructions, and that the car used to transport sandalwood was registered in her name. The petitioners’ explanation — that the taxi was bought in the second petitioner's name by her father to run for hire and to maintain the family, and that the first petitioner mainly managed the business — led the Court to conclude there was no material to show the second petitioner knowingly joined the conspiracy. Consequently, the proceedings against the second petitioner lacked a triable case.
As to the first petitioner: the investigation records, as reviewed by the Superintendent of Police and relied upon by the prosecution, warranted the inference of a triable case against him. Thus the case against the first petitioner could not be quashed at the stage of this petition.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The petition is allowed in part: proceedings are quashed as against the second petitioner; proceedings are not quashed as against the first petitioner and shall continue.

Direct consequences:

The petition is allowed insofar as it seeks quashing of proceedings against the second petitioner (second accused); the charges against her are quashed.
The petition is dismissed insofar as it concerns the first petitioner (first accused); the Magistrate will proceed with the trial in C.C. 592 of 1980 against accused 1 and accuseds 3 to 6.

Broader implications: The Court rejected a categorical rule that a revised charge-sheet may not be filed without further investigation. It followed authorities (notably Hanumantha Gowd and D.D. Patel) permitting a police officer to file an additional or revised charge-sheet to correct omissions or on directions from superiors even where no fresh investigation has been conducted. The opinion did not purport to lay down a sweeping new precedent beyond the immediate reasoning and outcome; the decision addresses the proper interpretation and application of Section 173 in the factual circumstances of this case and applies established authorities.

Order

Order accordingly: the petition is allowed as to the second petitioner and dismissed as to the first petitioner; the Magistrate shall proceed with trial in C.C. 592 of 1980 against accused 1 and accuseds 3 to 6.

Show full summary ...

P.G Periasamy And Another v. Inspector Of Police, Pennagaram Police Station .

1. The two petitioners, who stand arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in C.C 592 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri, have preferred this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C to quash the proceedings against them. The petition has come to be filed in the following circumstances: The first petitioner was a Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Armed Reserve and the second petitioner is his wife. The first petitioner's services were terminated on 19-8-1979 on account of his involvement in a strike organised by the policemen. But subsequently, the Government took a lenient view of the matter and reinstated the first petitioner as well as the other members of the police force, who had also been dismissed from service for their involvement in the strike. Again on 8-8-1980, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, placed the first petitioner under suspension on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 1980 regarding theft and illegal transport of sandalwood billets. After investigating the case, he filed charge-sheet No. 101 of 1980 on 25-10-1980, against four persons, who are now arrayed as accused 3 to 6 in the case under S. 36(a) of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act read with Rules 3 and 7 of the Sandalwood Illicit Possession and Transport Rules. The Judicial II Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri, before whom the charge-sheet was originally filed, directed transfer of the case to the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, since the offences complained of are only triable by a I Class Magistrate. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the four accused mentioned in the charge-sheet. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police filed another charge-sheet viz. charge-sheet No. 7/81 dated 27-1-1981 alleging commission of offence by the two petitioners herein along with the four persons originally charge-sheeted in C.C 101 of 1980. In the revised charge-sheet, it was averred that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy on. 3-4-1980, along with the other four accused for committing theft of sandalwood from the patta land in Erabiyanahalli Village.

2. The Magistrate took cognizance of the revised charge-sheet and issued processes to the petitioners also. It is at that stage of matters, the petitioners have come forward to seek the quashing of proceedings.

3. The legal contention put forth by Mr. D. Krishnan, for seeking the quashing of proceedings is that the Investigating Officer is not entitled to file a revised charge-sheet without having done any further investigation in the matter and therefore the second charge-sheet should not have been taken note of by the learned Magistrate. In support of this contention, he places reliance on sub-section (8) of S. 173, Cr. P.C which reads as follows:—

“173(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, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence oral 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). The submission of Mr. Krishnan is that only if there had been further investigation and further materials had been gathered, the in spector could have filed a revised charge-sheet against the petitioners, as they were not originally arrayed as accused in the earlier charge-sheet. The second contention of the learned counsel is that even if the Inspector is entitled in law to file a revised clharge-sheet, the evidence gathered against the petitioners is so weak and artificial that the Magistrate could not have reached the requisite prima facie satisfaction to take the case on file against the petitioners and issued summons to them.

4. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the argument is not a tenable one. Section 173 of the Code does not say anything about the filing of one or more charge-sheets on the basis of the same investigation. There is no specific provision empowering an investigating officer to file a revised charge-sheet on the basis of the same materials on which the first charge-sheet was filed nor does the section prohibit the filing of a revised charge-sheet on the basis of the same materials. On the other hand, all that sub-section (2)(i) of S. 173 states is that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government. Section 173(8) has been newly added in order to make it expressly clear that merely because an Investigating Officer has sent a police report to the Magistrate he will not stand precluded from making further investigation in the case and submitting a further report or reports to the Magistrate regarding the additional evidence gathered by him in the further investigation. Because of this express provision, it should not be taken that if a police officer had committed an error in giving full and proper particulars regarding the names of parties, the nature of information, the names of witnesses, etc. in his first report, he cannot correct the mistake by filing a second report. When the Code provides for even further investigation being done after a report is filed before a Magistrate, there can be no bar whatever for the police filing a second or revised report on the materials already gathered during the investigation, especially when the second report is intended to set right certain mistakes or omissions in the first report. The matter should therefore be viewed in its proper perspective. Otherwise, the interests of the State, which in other words, would mean the interests of society, would suffer. On the contrary, if the contention of Mr. Krishnan is accepted, the resultant position would be that even if there are adequate materials against a person, he can get away without even a trial on account of a mistake or error committed by the investigating officer in laying a proper report before the Magistrate.

5. I shall now deal with the decisions placed for consideration by Mr. Krishnan and the Public Prosecutor in the course of their arguments. Mr. Krishnan cited Reshamlal v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri LJ 976, wherein the learned judge of the Patna High Court has held that a supplementary charge-sheet cannot be submitted by the police without further investigation and without obtaining further evidence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor places the following decisions and stated that they constitute the case law on the subject. In Mohindar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Lah 103 : (1932 (33) Cri LJ 97), it was held that the number of investigations is not limited by law and when one has been completed, another may be begun on fresh information received. In Start Chandra v. State (Prosecuting Inspector v. Minaketan) 1952 Cri LJ 1635 : (AIR 1952 Orissa 350), it was held that the police have a right to reopen the investigation even after the submission of charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr. P.C if fresh facts come to light in Rama Shanker v. State of U.P, AIR 1956 All 525 : (1956 Cri LJ 1037), it was held that there is nothing in the Code to prevent an investigating officer submitting another report in supersession of an earlier one if on further investigation, additional evidence is gatihered and the filing of another charge-sheet in supersession of the final report made earlier is called; for. To the same effect is Raghunath Sharma v. State, AIR 1952 Orissa 350 (AIR 1963 Pat 268?). In Raman Narayanan in re, 1973 Mad LJ (Cri) 16 : (1973 Cri LJ 1288) (Ker), it was held that if a police officer, after laying charge-sheet, gets further information, he can still investigate and lay further charge-sheets. In Ram lal Narang v. State of Delhi (Admn.), (1979) 2 SCR 923 : (1979 Cri LJ 1346), after an elaborate consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court held that a further investigation by the police cannot be considered as trenching upon the proceedings before Court. The ratio laid down in all, but the first of the cases is not of much guidance to the debate on hand, because they were all cases where further investigation had been done after filing the police report and the further investigation had brought to surface some more evidence necessitating the filing of a revised police report or charge-sheet.

6. In the case on hand, it is common ground that the Inspector of Police did not make any further investigation after filing his original report. On the other hand, a perusal of the records of investigation by the Superintendent of Police made him feel that the petitioners also should be arrayed as accused and tried for an offence of conspiracy. Therefore, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, the Inspector has filed the revised report. There are two cases which lend support to the view I have taken in the matter. In Hanumantha Gowd v. Official Receiver, AIR 1946 Mad 503, it was held that a police officer, who had filed what is styled as a ‘final charge-sheet’ in which he has not laid a charge against one of several persons, against whom information was received by him at the earliest stage of investigation, could file a charge-sheet against that person without disclosing that he had received any further information. A learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court has held in D.D Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1980 Cri LJ 29, that it is not necessary that there should be a fresh investigation and discovery of new material for laying an additional charge-sheet in the case and that if the material already on record is misunderstood by the Station Police Officer and if he has received proper light from his superiors, he can certainly file an additional charge-sheet, though there may not be, strictly speaking, any further investigation and collection, of new material. I am unable to agree with the view taken in Reshamlal v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri LJ 976. (Pat). On the other hand, I am in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in Hanumantha Gowda v. Official Receiver, AIR 1946 Mad 503 and D.D Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1980 Cri LJ 29.

7. I am therefore fortified in my view by the ratio contained in these two cases. Therefore, I have to reject the first contention of Mr. Krishnan that without further investigation being done, the Inspector is not entitled to file a second police report.

8. By way of further argument, Mr. Krishnan submitted that if there is really evidence against the petitioners that they had entered into a conspiracy with the other persons, then it is always open to the Court, in the course of the trial, to proceed against the petitioners also in exercise of its powers under S. 319, Cr. P.C By this argument, the indirect submission made by Mr. Krishnan is that the Inspector has no power to lay a revised charge-sheet against six persons, when his original report was only against four persons. It is true that the Court can always exercise its powers under Section 319 and proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of the offence for which the accused before Court were being tried. But the availability of such a power of Court does not mean that the investigating officer is denuded of his powers to file a revised charge-sheet when he notices that on the basis of materials already on record some more accused persons should also be proceeded with. Hence, the further plea of Mr. Krishnan has also to fail.

9. Coming now to the second contention of Mr. Krishnan, he submitted that as against the petitioners, there is absolutely no evidence, and on that ground, the proceedings against them have to be quashed. This contention can be sustained in so far as the second petitioner is concerned, but not in the case of the first petitioner. As against the second petitioner, the only material secured by the prosecution is that her husband, the first accused, obtained Rupees 1,300/- from her and handed it over to the other accused with instructions as to where the money should be taken. Being the wife of the first petitioner, the second petitioner should have merely handed over the cash, when it was demanded by her husband, and she should not have known anything about the purpose for which the money was asked for. The Public Prosecutor pointed out that the car in which the sandalwood billets were transported, stands registered in the name of the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, after the first petitioner was dismissed from service, the second petitioner's father purchased a taxi in the name of his daughter and gave it to the second petitioner, so that the taxi could be run for hire and the family could be maintained from the income from the taxi. Even here, it is only the first petitioner, who should have been managing the business and not the second petitioner. Hence, there is absolutely no material to hold that she had joined in any conspiracy entered into by the other accused persons for obtaining possession of sandalwood billets and transporting them in violation of the relevant Act and Rules. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, the records of investigation warrant the inference that there is a triable case as against the first petitioner. Hence, the case cannot be quashed as against him. In the result, the petition will stand allowed in so far as the second petitioner (second accused) is concerned and will stand dismissed as against the first petitioner (first accused). The Magistrate will proceed with the trial of the case in C.C 592 of 1980 on the file of his Court against accused 1 and 3 to 6.

10. Order accordingly.

P.G Periasamy And Another v. Inspector Of Police, Pennagaram Police Station .

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' (Mr. D. Krishnan) Arguments

Public Prosecutor's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Order

P.G Periasamy And Another v. Inspector Of Police, Pennagaram Police Station .

Comments