STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 134
134
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1300-1302 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173(2), 173(8)
– Further Investigation – Whether the High Court was justified in
quashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the
accused persons for the alleged offences on the ground that the
CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub-
section (8) of s.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
filed a charge-sheet having once already submitted a final report
under sub-section (2) of the s.173 of the CrPC (closure report) –
Held: There is no bar against conducting further investigation u/s.
173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted u/s. 173(2) of
the CrPC has been accepted – Prior to carrying out a further
investigation u/s. 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary for the
Magistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report –
Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier
investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being
subjected to investigation twice over – Moreover, investigation
cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall
within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution –
The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable
to further investigation – There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest
that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an
application for further investigation u/s. 173(8) of the CrPC –
Impugned orders passed by the High Court set aside.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Delay in trial on
account of further investigation – Held: It is settled law that the
criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the
Society even though it has been committed against an individual –
Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State
and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely
on the ground of delay – Mere delay in approaching a Court of law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case – Though
it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173 – Distinction
between – Section 169 of the CrPC is silent in making report to the
Magistrate, however the Investigating Officer is under an obligation
to submit its report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of the CrPC
– Though Section 169 of the CrPC does not contemplate making a
report, it contemplates of obtaining a bond with or without sureties
from the accused to appear if and when so required before the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
report and such report is contemplated under Section 173 of the
CrPC.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Non-compliance to
second proviso to s. 17 – A superior police officer of the rank of
Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required
to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for offence u/s.
13(1)(e) is commenced – The argument canvassed on behalf of the
accused persons is that there is no such order of the police officer
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the charge-sheet
– Held: In the instant case, this issue was not raised before the
High Court – Even otherwise, this is a question of fact and a matter
of record – If it is the case of the accused that there is no such order
on record, the same may be pointed out to the trial court in the
course of the trial – It is for the trial court to verify the record, look
into it and take an appropriate call on this issue in accordance with
law.
Maxim – Nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi – discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Section 169 of CrPC
1. Section 169 of the CrPC is silent in making report to the
Magistrate, however the Investigating Officer is under an
obligation to submit its report to the Magistrate under Section
173 of the CrPC. Thus, though Section 169 of the CrPC does not
contemplate making a report, it contemplates of obtaining a bond
with or without sureties from the accused to appear if and when
so required before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v.
HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
S

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