Magistrate Can't Take Cognizance Of Supplementary Chargesheet If It Lacks Fresh Evidence After Further Investigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 22) observed that it would be impermissible under the law for a Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet submitted after further investigation if it doesn't contain any fresh oral or documentary evidence, would be impermissible under the law.

Reversing the concurring findings of the High Court and Trial Court, the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, noted that while submitting the supplementary charge-sheet as a result of an order of further investigation under Section 178 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer shall mention new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by him. Otherwise, such supplementary charge-sheet lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

“The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC.”

Briefly put, the appellants-accused filed an application seeking discharge before the trial court in a pending criminal case but the application turned down by the trial court. In the meanwhile, the trial court directed further investigation on the application of the complainant and resultantly allowed the police to submit the supplementary charge-sheet, thereby adding charges under Sections 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 against the appellants-accused.

The appellants application seeking discharge was turned by the trial court. Moreover, the High Court also dismissed the revision application of the appellants seeking revision of a trial court's order of not discharging the appellants.

It is against the said impugned order of the High Court, the appellants-accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue

The question appears before the court whether the framing of charges against the appellant-accused persons on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet, submitted pursuant to the completion of the further investigation is sustainable under law?

Observation

The Court stated that the investigating officer can submit the supplementary charge-sheet only when further evidence, whether oral or documentary, is obtained by the I.O. In the present case, the supplementary charge-sheet relies upon the same lab report to frame charges against the accused as was relied upon by the I.O. while submitting an earlier charge-sheet.

The court find no new evidences in the supplementary charge-sheet while observing as follows:

“Instead, the supplementary charge-sheet relies upon the Truth Lab report dated 15.07.2013, obtained by Respondent No. 2, which was already available when the original chargesheet was filed. The term 'further investigation' stipulated in Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the officer­in­charge of the concerned police station to 'obtain further evidence, oral or documentary', and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form.”

The court noted that the order by the trial court permitting further investigation on the application of the complainant resulted into a mechanical investigation by the I.O. without applying the mandate of Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

“In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. What becomes apparent from the facts on record of this case is that the investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate's order dated 24.06.2015.”

The court expressed dissatisfaction towards the approach of the trial court while framing the charges against the accused on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet. It is worthwhile to mention that the supplementary charge-sheet majorly relied the private laboratory report which according to court couldn't be safely relied unless corroborated by compelling evidence(s).

“As observed earlier, the State FSL report does not substantiate these allegations. In our opinion, a paid report obtained from a private laboratory seems to be a frail, unreliable, unsafe, untrustworthy and imprudent form of evidence, unless supported by some other corroborative proof. It is painful to mention that Respondent No. 2 has not produced any other substantive proof, nor has the investigating agency obtained any such material in compliance with the Trial Magistrate's order for further investigation. The basis on which the Trial Magistrate formed a prima facie opinion, in the absence of such supporting evidence is, therefore, beyond our comprehension.”

Thus, the court allowed the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused persons, while setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the trial court directing further investigation.

Also from the judgment - Mere Cheating Will Not Attract S.420 IPC Offence; Accused Must Dishonestly Induce Cheated Person To Deliver Property : Supreme Court

Case Details:

Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Click here to read the judgment