CAUSE TITLE:
State Through Central Appellant Bureau Of Investigation Versus Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc.
DATE OF ORDER:
04-2023
JUDGE(S):
Suryakant, J.B. Pardiwala
PARTIES:
Petitioner:State Through Central Appellant Bureau Of Investigation
Respondent: Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc
Subject
According to a ruling by a Supreme Court panel consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala, "the Magistrate need not review or recall the order accepting the final report before conducting a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC."
Issue raised
whether the High Court's decision to rule out the CBI's entire case against the accused was justified?
Facts
- Respondent No. 3 in this case, D. Dwarakanadha Reddy (Accused No. 1), began working for the Customs Department as a Preventive Officer in 1993. Respondent No. 3 was elevated to the position of Appraiser in the Customs Department in January 2003.
- On June 30, 2006, the Superintendent of Police (CBI) received the following information:
- D. Dwarakanadha Reddy (A-1) worked as an Appraiser for the Customs Department since 2004, and his pay was his primary source of income.
- His wife, D. Sujana Reddy (A-2) owns no agricultural land and conducts business as M/s Sujana Engineers.
- That the couple acquired assets worth Rs. 64, 41, 690.92 lakh between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2005, but their combined income during that period was Rs. 50, 95, 371.57/-, which included A-1's salary income, A-2's agricultural income, A-2's business income, bank interest, an Andhra Bank housing loan, capital gain on sale of property, A-1's rewards, and so on.They spent Rs. 12, 74, 347.16/- between January 1, 2001 and March 31, 2005, leaving them with a savings of Rs. 38, 21, 024.41/-.
- As a result, their total disproportionate assets were approximately Rs. 26, 20, 666.51/- on March 31, 2005.
- In the aforementioned circumstances, the CBI filed an FIR in RC MA 1 2006 A 0027 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act'), as well as Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
- On December 24, 2008, the CBI/ACB filed a motion with the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases in Chennai, requesting that the proceedings be closed and the documents be returned for regular departmental action against accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3).
Analysis of court
- In this case, the High Court invalidated the CBI's entire case against the accused on the grounds that the CBI could not have conducted any more inquiry under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
- The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation because the CBI had previously filed a closure report, which had been accepted by the court concerned at the relevant time.
- The Apex Court concluded that "there is no bar against executing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted" after reviewing several decisions of the Court made in cases where final reports (closure reports) had already been submitted and accepted. It is also clear that the Magistrate does not need to review or refer back to the decision accepting the final report before conducting a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The Court then provided the following summary of its conclusions:
- The investigating agency may continue its inquiry into the case even after the final report has been presented to the magistrate and accepted. In other words, once the final report presented following Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted, there is no prohibition on undertaking additional investigations under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
- It is not required to review, recall, or quash the decision accepting the final report before conducting fa further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
- It is incorrect to claim that the accused are the subject of two separate investigations because the additional inquiry is just a continuation of the earlier investigation. Furthermore, if an investigation is to be covered by Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution, it cannot be treated on an equal footing with prosecution and punishment. Therefore, further investigation would not be subject to the principle of double jeopardy.
- Nothing in the CrPC implies that the court must hear the accused while deliberating a request for additional investigation made under section 173(8) of the CrPC.
- The Court then granted the appeals and overturned the High Court's decision
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
