NOORUDDIN V.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
the accused - petitioners.

Show all summary . . .

0
NOORUDDIN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.:-

(1) The question that cropped up in the instant revision is as to whether a supplementary charge

sheet can be filed under section 173 (8) cr. P. C. Even without recording further evi dence oral or

documentary.

(2) This question emerges in the circumstances set out below:

(i) an fir came to be lodged by the informant shamsuddin on october 26, 1990 against co - ac -

cused munna khan alongwith latoor and narayan. Police station indergarh commenced investi -

gation and submitted charge sheet only against the accused munna khan. It was kept pending

against latoor and narayan. Therefore the investigating officer has recorded titamba statements

under section 161, cr. P. C. Of the witnesses after the period of three years and laid charge

sheet against the accused petitioners on may 17, 1996. (ii) the learned trial court vide its order

dated april 10, 1997, framed charge under section 302/34, i. P. C. Against the accused - pe -

titioners. Against this order that the present action for filing this criminal revision has been re -

sorted to by them.

(3) Mr. Manoj sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that no charge - sheet

could have been laid against the accused petitioners. Thus the order framing charge deserves to be quashed.

(4) Reliance was placed on kunjalata del v. State of orissa rajinder prasad pappu v. State resham lal

yadav and others v. State of bihar and s. Ramapandian v. State. On the other hand. Mr. M. L. Goya!,

learned public prosecutor supported the impugned order. I have re flected over the rival submissions and
d
IS carefully scanned the material on record.

(5) The provisions contained in section 173 (8). Cr. P. C. Are as follows: nothing in this sec tion shall

be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report un der sub - section (2) has

been forwarded to the magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer - incharge of the police

o station obtains further evidence oral or documentary, he shall for ward to the magistrate a further report or
h
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). A perusal of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that it empowers the police to make fur ther

investigation in respect of the offence after submission of the charge - sheet and under this provision a

supplementary charge sheet can be submitted if on further investigation fresh evi dence is available. In the

case on hand the question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances supplementary charge

sheet can be submitted by the police on the basis of titamba bayant.

(6) The police station. Indergarh could not have filed charge sheet against the accused - peti tioners as the

statements of the prosecution witnesses were already recorded. The supplemen tary charge sheet has been

filed by the police station indergarh without further investigation and without obtaining any further evidence

against the accused - petitioner. Under the provi sions of section 173 (8) , cr. P. C. The police is not

precluded from investigating further into the case in respect of the offence after a report under subsection (2)

of section 173 has been forwarded to the magistrate if the officer incharge obtains further evidence oral or

documentary he shall for. Ward to the magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the

form prescribed and the provisions of subsections. (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in re lation to such

report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under subsection (2). Therefore, supplementary

charge sheet cannot be submitted without making further inves tigation and without obtaining further evidence

oral or documentary in respect of an offence.

(7) I am of the considered view that on the basis of titamba statements recorded after three years of

the prosecution witnesses on the basis of which charge sheet was land against co - ac cused munna khan.

Cannot be treated as further evidence oral or documentary in respect of the alleged offence. As the

supplementary charge sheet has been filed without making further investigation and without obtaining further

evidence oral or documentary in respect of alleged offence, it was not permissible and no charge could have

been framed against the accused - petitioners.

(8) Resultantly, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated april 1 0, 1997

of the learned additional sessions judge. Bundi stands set aside and the accused peti tioners stand discharged

from the offence under section 302/34, i. P. C. There record of the case be sent back of forthwith. Revision

allowed.

0 2017 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. f t► in