State of Mysore Vs. Ramiah and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 173(8): [subhash b. adi, j] further investigation by police - death due to group clash cases booked against both the groups - charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - when case pending in sessions court representation made by mla of district to government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - government ordered further investigation high court quashed permission granted by government - police filed application before sessions judge seeking permission for further investigation - sessions court granted permission - challenge as to - held, what is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the cod. it is not a case of reinvestigation or fresh investigation. further investigation is in furtherance of the investigation already made and not undoing what is already done, the further investigation is in furtherance of the earlier report. it is ultimately the magistrate or the sessions judge who conduct the trial is required to consider the material collected by the police is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused or not. the investigating agency will only place the material before the court and it is for the court to accept or not, object behind the further investigation is to search for the truth. in this case there is serious allegation that the real culprit is not apprehended. in furtherance of the same the police feel that the further investigation is necessary to find out the truth and has made an application to the court for permission. the trial court has not found any mala fide intention on the part of the police. the accused cannot make an objection for further investigation. if not, that material collected in further investigation by itself becomes proof. it is ultimately the court has to consider as to the sufficiency or illegality in the permission granted by the trial court for further investigation. orderc. honniah, j.1. this is a reference under section 438, criminal procedure code by the sessions judge, tumkur, recommending that the order dated 5.6.1967 in c.c. no. 872 of 1967 passed by the special first class magistrate, madhugiri, be set aside.2. the facts that have given rise to this reference are these : one doddakavalappa filed a complaint against the petitioners before the special first class magistrate, madhugiri under sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 323 read with section 114, indian penal code. his complaint was registered. before the trial, it was reported that doddakavalappa died. the learned magistrate acquitted the petitioners under section 247 of the code of criminal procedure.some days later, gowramma, widow of the deceased doddakvalappa filed another complaint against the same petitioners for the same offence of which they had been acquitted. the learned magistrate registered the complaint in c.c. no. 872 of 1967 on 31.5.1967 and issued notice to the petitioners. from the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioners were acquitted under section 247, code of criminal procedure, in respect of the same facts and offences in c.c. no. 388 of 1967. acquittal under section 247 is an acquittal which bars further trial under section 403 of the code of criminal procedure. therefore the referenda is accepted and the order of the learned magistrate, dated 5.6.1967 set aside.

Judgment:
ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, recommending that the order dated 5.6.1967 in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri, be set aside.

2. The facts that have given rise to this reference are these : One Doddakavalappa filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri under Sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code. His complaint was registered. Before the trial, it was reported that Doddakavalappa died. The learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioners under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Some days later, Gowramma, widow of the deceased Doddakvalappa filed another complaint against the same petitioners for the same offence of which they had been acquitted. The learned Magistrate registered the complaint in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 on 31.5.1967 and issued notice to the petitioners. From the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioners were acquitted under Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the same facts and offences in C.C. No. 388 of 1967. Acquittal under Section 247 is an acquittal which bars further trial under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the referenda is accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 5.6.1967 set aside.