R.SARALA versus T.S.VELU

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

II~ 
1 
R.SARALA 
A 
v. 
T.S.VELU 
APRIL 13, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 163(2)-lnvestigation by 
police-Scope-Whether investigating agency can be compelled to seek opin-
ion of a Public Prosecutor under the orders of Court-Held, No-Investigation 
and prosecution are two different facets in administration of criminal justice. 
C 
In a case of death of a young bride, the police after conducting the 
investigation submitted a Challan against her husband and his mother for 
the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 
Father of the deceased not being satisfied with the challan since the appel-
lant, sister-in-law of the deceased and her father were not arraigned as 
accused, moved the High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure 
Code. The High Court directed the investigating Officer to take back the 
ease from the Court and consult the Public Prosecutor and submit a fresh 
charge sheet in tune with the opinion of the Public prosecutor. The appel-
lant's father filed a petition before the Single Judge for recalling the order 
but the petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that Section 362, 
Criminal Procedure Code contains a bar against recalling any order passed 
under the Code. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that the Single 
Judge erred in directing the investigating officer to submit the amended 
charge sheet in accordance with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. The 
respondent contended that there is nothing objectionable for the investigat-
ing officer to consult the Public Prosecutor before laying a report under 
Section 163(2) of the Code. 
The question raised for consideration in this appeal is, should the 
High Court direct the investigating Officer to take opinion of the Public 
Prosecutor for filing the charge sheet. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1.1. : Investigation is defined in Section 2(h) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, as including "all the proceedings under this Code for 
H 
1 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 3 S.C.R. 
the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person · 
(other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf." 
In this case it was the investigation to be conducted by a police otlicer. {5-B] 
1.2. Public Prosecutor is appointed, as indicated in Section 24 of the 
Code, for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the 
Court. He has also the power to withdraw any.case from the prosecution with 
the consent of the Court. He is the Officer of the Court. ThusPublicProsecu-
toris to deal with a different field in the administration of justice and he is not 
involved in investigation. Itis not in the scheme of the Code for supporting or 
sponsoring any combined operation between the investigation officer and 
the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the Court. [ 6-D-E] 
1.3. The Investigating Officer, though is subject to supervision by his 
superiors in rank is, not to take instructions regarding investigation of any 
particular case even from the executive government of which he is a 
subordinate officer. [7-B-C] 
1.4. Even when law required that prosecution could be commenced 
only with the sanction of the authority concerned this Court took the stand 
that such sanctioning Authority is not a consultee of the Investigating 
Officer to form his opinion regarding the final shape of investigation. The 
position in the present case is even much lighter and hence the Investigating 
Officer cannot be directed to be influenced by the opinion of the Public 
Prosecutor. [18-E] 
1.5. The High Court has committed an illegality in directing the final 
report to be taken back and to file a fresh report incorporating the opinion 
of the Public Prosecutor. Such an order cannot stand legal Scrutiny. [8-F] 
HN. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955) 1 SCR 1150; 
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, Am. (1945) PC 18; Abhinandan Jha v. 
Dinesh Mishra, Am. (1968) SC 117; Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 
SCC 226 and State v. Raj Kumar Jain, (1998) 6 SCC 551, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
366-368 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.99 of the Madras High Court 
H 
in Crl.O.P. No. 8937 of 1998. 
R. SARALA v. T.S. VELD [THOMAS, J.] 
3 
~ 
S. Sivasubramaniam and T. Raja for the Appellant. 
A 
V. Balachandran and V.G. Pragasam for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.