STATE OF A.P. versus A.S. PETER

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,) 
STATE OF A.P. 
A 
v. 
A.S. PETER 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
)_. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 36 and 482-Further investigation-Challenged for not 
obtaining prior permission of Magistrate-HELD: Law does not c 
mandate taking of prior permission from Magistrate for further 
investigation-Carrying out further investigation even after filing of 
charge-sheet is a statutory right of police-Investigation by CID 
cannot be said to be as taken up by a different agency-CID is a part D 
of investigating agency of the State-Order of High Court quashing 
the criminal proceedings set aside-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-s.482. 
A first information report was lodged u/ss. 199, 200 and 204 IPC E 
on the ground that the respondent made a false declaration of the stock 
shown in his godown, which was ensured and which caught fire, and 
inflated the claim in order to make unlawful gain. A charge-sheet, upon 
completion of the investigation, was filed in the court of Additional 
> 
MunsifMagistrate, Tirupati. Subsequently, on allegations having been 
made regarding the manner in which the local police conducted the F 
investigation, Additional Director General of Police, CID entrusted the 
case for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID. An 
additional charge sheet was filed against the respondent and two others 
in the court of Additional MunsifMagistrate, Chittoor. The respondent 
filed an application before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal G 
proceedings on the grounds that prior permission of the Magistrate was 
not obtained for further investigation and the same was conducted by 
an entirely different investigating agency. The High Court allowed the 
application. Aggrieved, the State filed the instant appeal. 
517 
H 
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
\ 
HELD: 1.1. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior 
permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out 
further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory 
B 
right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation 
and re-investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior permission 
is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. 
[Para5] (521-C,D] 
1.2. It is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation 
c to a separate conspiracy. As allegations had been made against the 
officer of a local police station in regard to the mode and manner in which 
investigation was carried out, further investigation was directed. The 
court was informed thereabout. Although, no express permission was 
granted, but evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary 
D implication as further proceedings in the Court were stayed by the 
Magistrate. It is also not a case where two chargesheets were filed 
I 
before two different courts. The Court designated to deal with the matters 
wherein investigation was carried out by the CID, is located at Chitoor. 
It is in this situation, the Sessions Judge transferred the case pending 
E in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance 
of further offence was also taken by the Chittoor Court. 
[Para 12] [524-B, C, D, E] 
R.P. Kapur and Ors. v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Ors., (1961] 
2SCR143, relied on. 
F 
State of Bihar andAnr. v. JA. C. Saldanha and Ors., (1980] 1 SCC 
554 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004] 13 SCC 292, relied on. 
2. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the investigation was 
taken up by a different agency. The CID is a part of the investigating 
G authorities of the State. Further investigation was directed by the 
Additional Director General of Police. Section 36 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 empowers a police officer, superior in rank to an officer 
in charge of a police station, to exercise the same powers throughout 
the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such 
H 
'\. 
> 
,,\-
STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER [SINHA, J.]. 
519 
officer within the limits of his station. It was, therefore, permissible for A 
the higher authority to carry out or direct further investigation in the 
matter. [Para 7 and 8] [522-A, B, C] 
Ram Lal Narangv. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 2 SCC 322, 
distinguished. 
K Chandrasekhar v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 223, 
held inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.