LexRANDHJR SINGH RANA versus THE STATE BEING THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c RANDHJR SINGH RANA v. THE STATE BEING THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER 20,1996 [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Code of Ciiminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482-Magistrate orde1ing further investigation after accused had made his appearance-Held, Magistrate is not conceded the power to order fwther investigation of his own. S. 482-Saves the inherent power of High Cowt only-Said power does not inhere in subordinate C1iminal cowts. After the accused appellant had made his appearance and the con- cerned case was otherwise ready for considering the question whether D charge should be framed or the appellant should be discharged, further investigation was ordered by the concerned Magistrate into the matter on his own. The appellant then moved the High Court which refused to grant any relief. On appeal, this court was approached to decided the question E whether a Judicial Magistrate, after having taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after a}Jpearance of the accused in pursuance of a summons, can order further investigation into the case on his own. F Allowing the appeal, this Court. HELD : 1.1. After cognizance has been taken and accused has made appearance pursuant to the process issued against him, the magistrate was not conceded the power to order investigation. [883-H; 884-A] G Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh, [1977] 4 SCC 459 and Abhinandan !ha v. Dinesh Mishra; [1967] 3 SCR 668, 479, distinguished. 1.2. The Magistrate on his own cannot order further investigation. As in the present case the Magistrate had done so, his order is set-aside and he is directed to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or H discharge the accused on the basis of materials already on record. This 880 R. S. RANAv. STATE BEING THE DELHIADMN. [HANSARIA,J.] 881 will be subject to the caveat that even if the order be of discharge, further A investigation on its own by the police would be permissible, which could even end in submission of either fresh chargesheet. [887-B-C] D. Lakshminarayana v. V. Narayana Reddy, AIR (1976) SC 1672, referred to. State of Rajasthan v. Anma Devi, [1995] 1 SCC 1, held inapplicable. State v. Sankar Halde1; 89, CWN 1063, disapproved. B 1.3. In terms, both section 561A of the old code of Criminal Proce- dure whose parallel provision in the new code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 C in section 482, have saved the inherent power of the High Court only; it is doubtful whether the said power can be said to inhere in subordinate Criminal courts also. [884-F·G] Ram Lal Harang v. State (Delhi Administration), [19791 2 SCC 322 D and State v. Mehar Singh, (1974) Criminal Law Journal 970, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.89 of the Delhi High Court E in Misc. Main No. 1000 of 1988. Kailash Vasdev and Sudhir Walia (AC.), for the Appellant. B. Datta, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Kamakshi Singh Mehlwal and Arvind Kumar Shukla for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. A peep into a little grey area of the criminal law has become necessary in this appeal, as we have been called upon to decide as to whether a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on G the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order of his own further investigation in the case. That such a power is available to police after submission of chargesheet is no longer debatable question in view of sub- section (8) of section 173 (in Chapter XII: Information to Police and their Powers to H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l996) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. A Investigate) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It is also not in dispute that before taking of cognizance under section 190 (Part of Chapter XIV: Conditions Requisite for Initia- tion of Proceedings), the Magistrate may himself order investigation, as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 156 of the Code. Further, in B exercise of power under section 311 finding place in Chapter XXIV (General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials), the court may at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. But in the present appeal the learned Magistrate C ordered for further in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.