A. Pasayat, J.
1. On the basis of evidence obtained subsequent to forwarding of report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'). Investigating Officer forwarded a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nimapara, who took cognizance of offence punishable Under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC), in addition to cognizance taken in respect of offences punishable Under Section 341, 325, 323 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused-petitioners have assailed legality of the order. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the action taken by the learned JMFC is contrary to law. The learned counsel for State and the informant have submitted that the learned JMFC acted within the para meter of law and the order is perfectly legal.
2. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to refer to Section 173 of the Code, which deals with the role of police officer on completion of investigation. Sub-section (8) is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of controversy at hand. The said provision reads as follows ;
'173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. CD to (7) xx xx xx
(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, 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-secstions (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).'
Sub-section (8) is a new provision which authorises the police officer to make further investigation of an offence after submission of the police report Under Section 173(2) to the Magistrate and if upon such investi- gation, the Officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed, and in that event, provisions of Sub-sees. (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) of the section.
3. A report Under Section 173 of the Code is normally the end of the investigation. Sometimes, however, the police officer after submitting the report comes upon evidence having bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. in the greater interest of the society and for furthering ends of justice, the police officer should be able to collect that evidence and send it to the Magistrate. The section does not use or define the terms Charge-sheet' or 'final report'. The expressions are not used in the Code, but, it is understood in Police Manuals of several containing the Rules and regulations to be a report filed Under Section 170 and Section 169 of the Code respectively.
Under the old Code; there was no statutory provision for further investigation after forwarding the police report under Section 173(2) to the Magistrate and there was divergence of view as to whether further investigation after submission of such report was permissible. Sac. 173(8), Cr PC has been newly added in order to make it expressly clear that merely because an Investigating. Officer has sent a report to the Magistrate, he will not stand precluded from making further investigation in the case, and submitting a further report or reports to the Magistrate regarding the additional evidence gathered by him in the further investigation. Supplemantary reports can be submitted by the investigating agency to the Magistrate notwithstanding that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted Under Section 173(2), Cr PC. A supplementary report ran be filed after submission of the first report, if on further investigation fresh evidence is available. The subsequent report cannot be submitted without further Investigation by the police and without obtaining further evidence relating to the offence. The Code has no specific provision empowering an Investigating Officer to file a revised charge-sheet on the basis of the same material on the basis of which the first charge-sheet was filed, nor does the section prohibit filling of a revised charge-sheet on the basis of same material. Unless cognizance is taken on submission of police report, Sub-section (8) of Sec-173 cannot be pressed in aid for collecting further evidence which really can . be called in- aid if further evidence is discovered after the filing of the charge-sheet, or the police report on the completion of the investigation. Section 173(8) operates at a stage after the submission of charge-sheet and enables the Officer-in-charge of police station to take up further investigation and after obtaining further evidence, to forward a further report. The police has statutory right and duty to 'register' a very information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The police has the statutory right and duty to investigate the facts and the circumstances of the case where the commission of a cognizable offence was suspected, and to submit the report of such investigation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report. These statutory right6 and duties of the police are not circumscribed by any power of superintendence or interference in the Magistrate ; nor is any sanction required from a Magistrate to empower the police to investigate into a cognizable offence. (See King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad : (1944)71 Ind. App. 203:AIR 1945 PC 18. Even after cognizance is taken,* Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation, if necessary, and to receive additional report or reports. The number of investigations into a crime is not limited by law and where one has been completed by the submission of a report, another may be begun on further information being received. The prosecution is not cribbed, cabined or confined within the corners of the report under this section. There is no restriction placed by the Legislature on the reception of subsequent material before the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is only permissive in character. Therefore, neither the prosecution, i e., the informant nor the accused can claim as a matter of right a direction from a Court commanding further investigation by the Investigating Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 after a charge-sheet is filed after investigation.
4. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.): AIR 1979 SC 1791, it was observed by the apex Court that notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted Under Section 173 of 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigation is not exhausted and the police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes to light. Neither Section 173 or Section 190 lead to say that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permits repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts. The Law Commission in its 41st report recommended that the right of the police to make further investigation should be statutorily affirmed, and in Clause 14. 23 of the report necessary recommendations were made. Accordingly, the new provision of Section 173(8) was introduced.
5. Anyone acquainted with the day-to-day working of the Criminal Courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused, or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate After all, the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private -Individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. It would be in the interests of independence of the Magistracy and the judiciary in the interests of the purity of the administration 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 come to Tight. 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. But mere absence of such per- mission would not make the order of the Magistrate vulnerable.
6. After having cleared the deck so tar as the legal position is concerned, I shall grapple with the facts situation.
It appears that the medical officer who had treated injured Saraswati Sahoo had opined that the injuries were grievous, and were caused by blunt weapon and were inflicted on the scalp which is a vital part of the body. On the basis of this material with regard to further examination of the medical officer, namely, Dr. Brahmananda Acharya, Professor, Neuro Surgery, filing of an additional report was necessary. It is submitted that the aforesaid material was already before the Investi- gating Officer; when the report in the form prescribed was submitted. I find that originally the injury report is dated 29-8-1992, and on it endorsement was made by the Professor Of Neuro Surgery pn14-10-.l992 to the effect that the injury was grievous in nature and was caused by blunt weapon. In the report dated 29-8-1992; it was mentioned that the injuries occurred on vital part of the body and therefore,' the patient was referred to the S.C.B. Medical College. Cuttack in the Neuro Surgery Department for specialist's opinion. Therefore, the case comes within the ambit of Sub-section (8) of Section 173. The learned Magistrate's action in acting upon the subsequent report is licit.
The revision application is without any merit and is dismissed.