Only superior courts can direct ‘re-investigation’: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that “re-investigation” in a criminal case can only be ordered by a superior court such as the high court and no such directions can be issued by a magistrate.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that “re-investigation” in a criminal case can only be ordered by a superior court such as the high court and no such directions can be issued by a magistrate.
The high court bench of justice JS Bedi, said that re-investigation means a “de novo investigation”, virtually washing off the investigation so conducted. However, as regards to “further investigation”, it is the domain of the investigating agency but it is desirable that prior intimation of the same is given to the magistrate as the challan stands submitted in that particular case. “… ‘further investigation’ would mean some additional evidence has been found against the existing accused or some other person is to be nominated as an accused to face trial along with the existing accused and therefore, some additional investigation is required to be conducted,” the court clarified.
These observations came from the high court in a case, wherein a Sirsa resident, initially a complainant in a criminal case was subsequently roped in as an accused by the police. He had challenged challan against him, arguing that police could not have conducted a re-investigation in the case as there were no orders from superior courts like high court or supreme court in this regard.
The court further clarified that in the case of multiple challans submitted by an investigating agency, it is only a superior court that can direct the exclusion of any of the reports for the purposes of framing of charges. “If not so done, it is the domain of the trial court to consider all the reports(challans) …to either frame charges or discharge the accused,” it further added.
To a question raised by the petitioner that any material supplied by him during investigation of his complaint cannot be used against him as it would amount to self-incrimination, the court said that the formal accusation against the petitioner was levelled only when the supplementary challan was submitted against him. “…for the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India the person concerned must be formally arrayed as an accused in order to claim the benefit of the guarantee against testimonial compulsion. Any evidence provided by a person to the investigating agency during the course of an investigation can certainly be used against the said person in case he had not yet attained the status of an accused which can only be attained when there is a formal accusation against him,” the court clarified.
The court also did not accept his argument on invocation of the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act in a case wherein there was no public servant involved. Merely because there is no public servant involved does not mean that the petitioner and other accused cannot be chargesheeted for offences under the provisions of the PC Act, the court said adding “..Such an offence can therefore be committed by a public servant or by a private person or by a combination of the two.”
