Holding

Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is permissible as a continuation of the original investigation and does not constitute prohibited reinvestigation, thereby allowing the trial court to summon witnesses named in a supplementary charge‑sheet.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under sections of the IPC and the Arms Act, and during the trial the police submitted a supplementary charge‑sheet with eight new witnesses. The prosecution sought to summon these witnesses under Section 231 of the Cr.P.C., invoking the right to conduct "further investigation" under Section 173(8). The trial court allowed the summons, the High Court upheld that order, and the appellant challenged it on the ground that such investigation amounted to prohibited reinvestigation and would prejudice the defence. The Supreme Court held that Section 173(8) permits continuation of the earlier investigation (further investigation) without prior magistrate permission, and that reinvestigation is barred, but the supplementary charge‑sheet and summoning of witnesses are lawful. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the police may conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary charge‑sheet after the original charge‑sheet has been filed and the trial is underway.
Whether the trial court’s summoning of witnesses named in the supplementary charge‑sheet under Section 231 Cr.P.C. is illegal or irregular.
Whether such further investigation amounts to prohibited reinvestigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 231

Subjects

further investigationreinvestigationsupplementary charge-sheetsection 173section 231criminal trialevidenceprosecution witnessesstatutory rightdelaytruth

Judgment

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 482

A RAMA CHAUDHARY
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 619_ of 2009)

B
APRIL 2, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

c ss. 173 and 231 - Further investigation - Permissibility
of - Held: Further investigation is permissible, however,
reinvestigation is prohibited - Carrying on further investigation
even after filing of charge-sheet is statutory right of police - It
can submit supplementary charge-sheet on basis of fresh
D
materials at any stage - No prior permission from Magistrate
is required for further investigation - On facts, order of trial
-
court summoning the witnesses named in supplementary
charge-sheet not illegal - Under s.231 prosecution entitled
to produce any person as witness even though such person .
is not named in the earlier charge-sheet.
E
'Further investigation' - Meaning of- Held: Is continuation
of the earlier investigation and not fresh investigation or
reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out earlier
investigation altogether.
F )L
The question which arose for consideration in this .....
appeal was whether the order of High Court that there
was no illegality or irregularity in summoning the
witnesses named in supplementary charge-sheet was
justified.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
•
HELD:1.1. A mere reading of s.173 (8) Cr.P.C. makes
it clear that irrespective of report under sub-section (2)
H 482
RAMA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 483

forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge of the A
police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on
his part to forward the same to the Magistrate with a
further report with regard to such evidence in the form
prescribed. The provision also makes it clear that further
investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is B
prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior
permission from the Magistrate for further investigation.
Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the
charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police.
Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. c
[Paras 8 and 9] [488-G-H; 489-A-B]

1.2. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-
section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after
submission of police report under sub-section (2) on
completion of investigation, the police has a right to D
"further" investigation under sub-section (8) of Section
173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The
meaning of "further" is additional; more; or supplemental.
"Further" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of
the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or E
reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier
investigation altogether. Sub-section (8) of Section 173
clearly envisages that on completion of further
investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to
the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report F
.•
regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such
investigation. [Para 10] [489-C-E]

1.3. The prime consideration for further investigation
is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. G
The hands of investigating agency for further
investigation should not be tied down on the ground of
mere delay. The mere fact that there may be further delay
in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of
further investigation if that would help the court in arriving H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective
justice. [Para 11] [489-F-G]

1.4. The order of the trial court summoning the
witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet
B cannot be faulted with. After enquiry and investigation
charges were framed on 11.03.2004 and thereafter in the
course of trial about 21 witnesses were examined. In the
meantime, police submitted supplementary charge-sheet
with certain new materials and on the basis of
supplementary charge-sheet, the prosecution filed an
C application in a pending Sessions trial to the trial court
for summoning the persons named in the charge-sheet
for their examination as prosecution witnesses. On a
careful perusal of the application, the trial court, allowed
the same and summoned those witnesses named in the
D supplementary charge-sheet. The material collected in
further investigation cannot be rejected only because it
has been filed at the stage of trial. It is also clear from s.
231 of the Cr.P.C. that the prosecution is entitled to
produce any person as witness even though such
E person is not named in the earlier charge-sheet.
Magistrate took note of all these relevant aspects while
summoning the witnesses based on supplementary
charge-sheet. This was correctly appreciated by the High
Court by rightly rejecting the revision. [Paras 12 and 13]
F [489-H; 490-A-G]
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Ors
(2004) 5 SCC 347 and K. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Kera/a
and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 223, Referred to.

G Case Law Reference:
(2004) 5 sec 347 Referred to. Para 11
(1998) 5 sec 223 Referred to. Para 13

H
RAMA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 485

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 619 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision No.437/2008.

U.U. Lalit, Rudrashwar Singh, Kaushik Poddar, Gopal Jha 8
and Tapesh Kumar Singh for the Appellant.

Vimla Singh (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Criminal Revision No.
437 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 in and by which, after finding D
that there is no illegality or irregularity in summoning the
witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet, the High
Court rejected the criminal revision filed by the appellant herein
against the order dated 19.02.2008 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 63 of 2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge E
allowed the application of the prosecution to summon the
witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On the basis of fardebayan of Smt. Champa Devi F
- wife of Awadh Yadav in Siwan Mofussil Police
Station case No. -8 of 2001 was registered against
the appellant and others on 13.01.2001 under
Section 364/34 of IPC.
G
(b) On 08.08.2003, an offence under Section 27 of the
Arms Act was also added. The police, after
compl~tion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet
on 29.08.2003 against the appellant and other five
accused under Section 364/34 IPC and Section 27 H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A of the Arms Act. In the said charge-sheet, the
prosecution has conveyed that they are going to
examine altogether 18 witnesses.

(c) On 11.03.2004, the learned Sessions Judge
framed charges under Sections 120-B, 364/34,
B
302/34 and 201/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the
Arms Act. The prosecution had examined 21
witnesses.

(d) When the trial was at the stage of closure, on
c 08.09.2007, another charge-sheet was submitted
by the Police in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan, against the charge-sheeted
accused persons adding names of eight new
witnesses in the charge-sheet. In the said report/
D charge-sheet, Police did not mention name of any
accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Siwan, without proceeding under Section 190
Cr.P.C. forwarded the second charge-sheet to the
court of Session/Special Court, Siwan, on
E 10.09.2007.

(e) On 12.01.2008, the prosecution has filed an
application in a pending Sessions Trial No. 63 of
2004 to summon the prosecution witnesses named
in the second charge-sheet. The appellant has filed
F a reply contending that the application filed by the
prosecution is not maintainable and the same was
filed with ma/a fide intention. By order dated
19.02.2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court allowed the said application to summon the
G witnesses by observing that the goal of criminal trial
is to discover the truth and to achieve that goal the

.
~

best possible evidence is to be brought on record.
The learned trial Judge issued summons to the
newly added witnesses and posted the case to
H 23.02.2008. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
RAMA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 487
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 437 of 2003 A
under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. before the
High Court. By the impugned judgment and order
dated 10.12.2008, the High Court dismissed the
; said revision. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
filed the above appeal. B

4. We heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mrs. Vimla Sinha, learned counsel for the State
of Bihar.

5. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, c
after taking us through relevant materials as well as Section
173(2) and (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
contended that "further investigation" referred to in sub-clause
'
~

(8) does not mean "re-investigation" against the accused
persons who are already facing trial in the case. He further D
pointed out that, in the present case, after submission of
charge-sheet under Section 173(2) in the year 2003, the
cognizance of the offence was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the case was remitted to the Court of Sessions.
Trial was commenced and altogether 21 witnesses have been E
examined. At a belated stage, the prosecution has filed the
..
present report for further investigation with a view to delay the
disposal of the trial. According to him, further investigation as
' ... contemplated in Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
allowed to be made into the very same offence in relation to F
the same accused if the trial had already commenced.
----.,
According to him, at this juncture, allowing the application of
- the prosecution for summoning eight new witnesses would
prejudice the defence of the accused in the trial.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, learned counsel G
for the State of Bihar, submitted that sub-section (8) of Section
173 Cr.P.C. recognizes right and confer statutory duty on the
Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation and submit
supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of fresh materials at
any stage and no prior permission from the Magistrate is H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A required for further investigation. She further submitted that
Section 231 of Cr.P.C. gives unfettered right to the prosecution
to produce any person as witness even though such person
may not have been examined by the Police if examination of
such person is necessary for unfolding the prosecution story. c

B
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear
that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary
delay. Sub-section (2) mandates that as soon as the
investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police
station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take
C cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the
form prescribed by the State Government mentioning the name
of the parties, nature of information, name of the persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case
and further particulars such as the name of the offences that
D have been committed, arrest of the accused and details about
his release with or without sureties. Among other sub-sections,
we are very much concerned about sub-section (8) which reads
as under:-

E "(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence,
F oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in the
form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to
(6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
under sub-section (2)."
G
8. A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear
that irrespective of report under sub-section (2) forwarded to
the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge of the police station
obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part to forward
H the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard to
~ ~ ~j

f
RAMACHAUDHARYv. STATE OF BIHAR 489
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

such evidence in the form prescribed. A

9. The above said provision also makes it clear that
--'* further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is
prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior
._., ~ permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. B
Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the
charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation
without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further
investigation is permissible.

10. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub- c
section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after
submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion
of investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation
under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh
=- ;
D
investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is
additional; more; or 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 investigation altogether. Sub-section (8)
of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further E
investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the
Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the
"further" evidence obtained during such investigation.

...; -I 11. As observed in Hasanbhai Va/ibhai Qureshi vs. State
F
...' of Gujarat and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 347, the prime
consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and
do real and substantial justice. The hands of investigating
agency for further investigation should not be tied down on the
'i ground of mere delay. In other words, the mere fact that there
'"'1
_.
may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in G
the way of further investigation if that would help the court in
" arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as
effective justice.
12. If we consider the above legal principles, the order H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A dated 19.02.2008 of the trial Court summoning the witnesses
named in the supplementary charge-sheet cannot be faulted
with. It is true that after enquiry and investigation charges were
framed on 11.03.2004 and thereafter in the course of trial about
21 witnesses were examined. In the meantime, Police
B submitted supplementary charge-sheet with certain new , ....
materials and on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, the
prosecution filed an application on 12.01.2008 in a pending
Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2004 to the trial Court for summoning
the persons named in the charge-sheet for their examination
c as prosecution witnesses. On a careful perusal of the
application, the trial Court, by order dated 19.02.2008, allowed
the same and has summoned those witnesses named in the
supplementary charge-sheet.

13. The law does not mandate taking prior permission
D from the Magistrate for further investigation. It is settled law that .-
carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-
sheet is a statutory right of the Police. [vide K. Chandrasekhar
vs. State of Kera/a and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 223.) The
material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected only
E . because it has been filed at the stage of trial. The facts and
circumstances show that the trial Court is fully justified to
summon witnesses examined in the course of further
investigation. It is also clear from Section 231 of the Cr.P.C.
that the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as
F witness even though such person is not named in the earlier
charge-sheet. All those relevant aspects have been taken note
of by the learned Magistrate while summoning the witnesses
based on supplementary charge-sheet. This was correctly
appreciated by the High Court by rightly rejecting the revision.
G We fully agree with the said conclusion.

14. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any
valid ground for interference, consequently, the appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.

H N.J. Appeal dismissed