STATE OF A.P.versusA.S. PETER

                                 STATE OF A.P.                               A
,)
                                       v.
                                  A.S. PETER

                             DECEMBER 13, 2007
                                                                             B
          [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
)_.

           Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:
           ss. 36 and 482-Further investigation-Challenged for not c
      obtaining prior permission of Magistrate-HELD: Law does not
      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
      on the ground that the respondent made a false declaration of the stock E
      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 ofAdditional MunsifMagistrate, Chittoor. The respondent
      filed an application before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal G
      proceedings on the grounds that prior permission ofthe 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
  right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation
B 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 ofa 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
  in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance
E 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 ofBihar 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 ofCriminal
  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.
                                                                                   B
             K Chandrasekhar v. State ofKera/a and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 223,
       held inapplicable.
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
       1119of2004.
                                                                                   c
            From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2002 of the High
       Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition
       No. 3955 of2000.
            D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant.
 '\.                                                                               D
          Nagendra Rai, A.V. Rao, Parnam Prabhakar and Venkateswara Rao
       Anumolu for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             S.B. SINHA, J. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us E
       aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.10.2002
       passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal
       Petition No. 3955 of2000 allowing a criminal revision application filed
>      by the respondent herein.
                                                                                F
             2. Respondent (Accused No. 1) carries on business in Red Sanders
       hard wood and was having a godown at Renigunta in the District of
       Chittoor. A fire broke out in the said godown on 28/29.06.1996 resulting
       in destruction of red sanders hard wood, undressed wood as also nine
       cutting machines.                                                        G
,,\-
            The said godown was insured. The concerned Forest Officer gave
       an information to the police station that the respondent had made a false
       declaration regarding the stock shown in the godown and inflated the same
       in order to make unlawful gain, whereupon a First Information Report
                                                                                   H
    520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A was lodged. Investigation was carried out upon obtaining permission of
  the concerned Magistrate. A chargesheet was filed upon completion of
  the investigation in the Court of III Additional MunsifMagistrate, Tirupati
  for alleged commission of offence under Sections 199, 200 and 200 of
  the Indian Penal Cqde: Subsequently, however, as some allegations had
B been made agains{the manner in which the local police conducted the
  investigation, the Additional Director General of Police, CID entrusted
  the case for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID, Prakasam
  District on S.11.1997.
C      Before carrying out the said investigation, the Inspector of Police,
  CID filed a memo in the said Court with the prayer that the matter be
  adjourned. Although it does not appear that any express permission was
  granted for carrying out further investigation, the prayer of adjournment
  was allowed in terms of the said Memo. Further investigation was carried
D out whereafter an additional chargesheet was filed against Accused Nos.
  1 to 3 in the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor for           !
  offences under Sections 199, 200, 204 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code.
  More accused persons were also added in the chargesheet in the category
  of accused. Indisputably, the case was transferred from the Tirupati Court
E to a Designated Court at Chittoor.
        The respondent filed an application before the High Court of Andhra
  Pradesh for quashing of the criminal proceedings inter alia on the ground
  that prior permission of the Magistrate was not obtained for further
  investigation as also on the ground that the same was conducted entirely
F by a different investigating agency.
         A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned
    order has allowed the said application.
       3. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
G the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court
  committed a manifest error in taking the view that the investigation in
  question was a fresh investigation or it was imperative on the part of the
  investigating officer to obtain express permission from the Magistrate
  concerned. Decisions of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi
H
                  STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER [SINHA, J.]                        521

    ,   Administration), [1979] 2 SCC 322 and K. Chandrasekhar v. State A
        ofKera/a and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 223 whereupon the High Court relied
        upon, Mrs. Reddy, would contend, have no application to the facts of
        the present case.
              4. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
        of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact B
j       that not only a re-investigation was conducted by a different investigating
        agency, even another case was instituted at a different place without
        obtaining the prior permission of the Magistrate concerned and, thus, the
        impugned judgment is unassailable in view of the decisions of this Court
        in Ram Lal Narang (supra) and K. Chandrasekhar (supra).                     c
             5. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission
        from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further
        investigation even after filing of the chargesheet is a statutory right of the
-\      police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and re- D
        investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior permission is
        necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.
              6. In R.P. Kapur and Ors. v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and
        Ors., [1961) 2 SCR 143, this Court laid down the law in the following
                                                                              E
        terms:
               " ... The Additional Inspector General of Police to whom Sethi' s
               complaint was sent was, without doubt, a police officer superior
               in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Sardar Hardayal
               Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Amritsar, was also F
               an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station.
               Both these officers could, therefore, exercise the powers,
               throughout the local area to which they were appointed, as might
               be exercised by an officer in charge of a police station within the
               limits of his police station ... "                                       G
A-
             It was further held:
               " ... If the police officer concerned thought that the case should be
               investigated by the C.I.D. - even though for a reason which does
                                                                                       H
    522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A          not appeal to us - it cannot be said that the procedure adopted
           was illegal ... "

        7. It is not correct to contend that the investigation was taken up by
  a different agency. The CID is a part of the investigating authorities of the
  State. A further investigation was directed by the Additional Director
B
  General of Police. Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972
  empowers a police officer, superior in rank to an officer in charge of a          ,L

  police station, to exercise the same powers throughout the local area to
  which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the
  limits of his station.
c
          8. It was, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out
    or direct further investigation in the matter.
        9. This aspect of the matter is covered by a decision of this Court
  in State ofBihar andAnr. v. JA.C. Saldanha and Ors., [1980] 1 SCC
D                                                                                   t·
  554, wherein it was held:
           "19 ..... This provision does not in any way affect the power of
           the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after
           submission of the report as provided in Section 173(8). Therefore,
E          the High Court was in error in holding that the State Government
           in exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 3 of
           the Act lacked the power to direct further investigation into the
           case. In reaching this conclusion we have kept out of consideration
           the provision contained in Section 156(2) that an investigation by
F          an officer in charge of a police station, which expression includes
           police officer superior in rank to such officer, cannot be questioned
           on the ground that such investigating officer had no jurisdiction to
           carry on the investigation; otherwise that provision would have been
           a short answer to the contention raised on behalf of Respondent
G          I."

         [See also Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, [2004] 13 SCC 292]
         10. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), this Court was concerned with a
    case where two conspiracies were alleged; one being part of a larger
H
                   STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER [SINHA, J.]                      523

         conspiracy. Two investigations were carried out. This Court, while opining A
". *
't       that further investigation is permissible in law, held that the Magistrate has
         a discretion in the matter to direct further investigation, even ifhe had taken
         cognizance of the offence, stating:
                 " ... The criticism that a further investigation by the police would
                 trench upon the proceeding before the court is really not of very B
                 great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final
                 discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That
                 the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against
                 any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make
                 further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to c
                 say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding
                before a court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light
                as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court of any offence.
                We think that in the interests of the independence of the magistracy
                and the judiciary, in the interests of the purity of the administration D
     '          of criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of the various
                agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such
                administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should
                inform the court and seek formal permission to make further
                investigation when fresh facts coine to light."                         E

               While acknowledging the power of the police authorities to carry
         out further investigation in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
         Procedure, an observation was made therein to the following effect:
     ~                                                                              F
               " .. .In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken
               cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under
               Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further
               investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such
               right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light.
               Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police G
               could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its
               formal permission to make further investigation."
              11. Even in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by
         the police authorities, it was observed:                              H
    524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A         "22. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken
          cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under
          Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further
          investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such
          right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light.
B         Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police
          could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its
          formal permission to make further investigation ... "
        12. lt is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to
C 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, a further investigation was directed. The court
  was informed thereabout. Althoug1'. no express permission was granted,
  but evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary implication as
D further proceeding was stayed by the learned Magistrate. It is also not a
  case where two chargesheets were filed before two different courts. The
                                                                                   •
  Court designated to deal with the matters wherein investigation had been
  carried out by the CID, is located at Chitoor. It is in the aforementioned
  situation, the Sessions Judge transfeITed the case pending in the Tirupati
E Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance of further offence
  had also been taken by the Chittoor Court.
        13. Reliance placed by the High Court as also by Mr. Rai in K.
  Chandrasekhar (supra) is misplace.d. Therein investigation had been
  carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation with the consent of the
F State. However, the State withdrew the same. The question which arose
  for consideration therein was as to whether it was permissible for the State
  to do so. The said issue was answered in the negative stating that the
  investigating officer must be directed to complete the investigation. It was
  in the aforementioned situation opined:
G
           "24. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that
           even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on
           completion of investigation, the police has a right of "further"
           investigation under sub-section (8) but not "fresh investigation" or
           "reinvestigation''. That the Government of Kerala was also
H
                 STATE OF A.P. v. A.S. PETER [SINHA, J.]                        525
~




              conscious of this position is evident from the fact that though initially A
    '    }
              it stated in the Explanatory Note of their notification dated 27-6-
               1996 (quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in
              public interest to order a "reinvestigation" of the case by a special
              team of State police officers, in the amendatory notification (quoted
              earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a "further investigation of B
              the case" instead of"reinvestigation of the case". The dictionary
              meaning of"further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional;
              more; supplemental". "Further" investigation therefore is the
              continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation
              or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier c
               investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also
              drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly
              envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating
              agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or
              reports-and not fresh report or reports-regarding the "further" D
        -~    evidence obtained during such.investigation. Once it is accepted-
              and it has got to be accepted in view of the judgment in Kazi
              Lhendup Dorji-that an investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant
              to a consent granted under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed,
              notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and that "further E
              investigation" is a continuation of such investigation which
              culminates in a further police report under sub-section (8) of Section
              173, it necessarily mea..1s that withdrawal of consent in the instant
    . ,>      case would not entitle the State Police, to further investigate into
              the case. To put it differently, if any further investigation is to be F
              made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to
              investigate into the case by the State Government. Resultantly, the
              notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State
              Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and
              unsustainable in law. In view of this finding of ours we need not G
              go into the questions, whether Section 21 of the General Clauses
        ""~
              Act applies to the consent given under Section 6 of the Act and
              whether consent given for investigating into Crime No. 246of1994
              was redundant in view of the general consent earlier given by the
              State ofKerala."                                                          H
    526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A         We do not see any application of the said ratio herein.
        14. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High
    Court cannot be sustained.
       15. Mr. Rai submitted that the High Court did not go into the other
B contentions raised by the respondent in quashing the application. We have
  examined the application filed by the respondent under Section 482 of
  the Code of Criminal Procedure and are satisfied that the respondent herein
  only raised the contention of validity of the chargesheet filed upon
  completion of the second investigation.
c         16. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed.
    RP.                                                    Appeal allowed.