LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     05 November 2008

power of magistrate to order further investigation


         is there any special circumstances whenever cognizance taken and accused appeared in pursuance to process issued---within this grey area the magistrate of his own  can order further investigation?


 7 Replies

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     06 November 2008

Dear Prof. To the best of my knowledge S.173 (8) is the section in the Code for further investigation. If there is any other sections pl. give the details. With love Suresh

Shree. ( Advocate.)     06 November 2008

Dear Prof. and K.C.S,


In this behalf relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2078 where it is observed in para 13 as under :- 13. In Om Prakash Narang and another v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 SC 1791) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to

make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the

matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or

actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable

and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the Courts. In view of the

aforesaid position in law if there is necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.



Shree. ( Advocate.)     06 November 2008

Dear Prof and K.C.S,

Surprisingly I got another decision regarding the same issue.But now i am not clear wheather further investigation should be allowed or not?

A) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 173(2)(8)

(B) Investigation — further investigation after final report

Special Judge can order further investigation under sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C., on receipt of final report under sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C. for ends of justice, but he cannot direct that further investigation shall be conducted by an officer of a particular rank.

Hemant Dhasmana vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

2001 Cri.L.J. SC 4190

This is a case of trap laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, in which, after the investigation, the CBI turned against the complainant and ordered him to be prosecuted for giving false information with intent to cause the public servant use his lawful power to the detriment of the public. However, the final report laid by the CBI was not acceptable to the Special Judge and he directed further investigation into the matter but the High Court reversed the said direction by the impugned order.

The Supreme Court held that although the sub-section 8 of sec. 173 Cr.P.C. does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the Court to order further investigation, the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the court. When any such order is passed by a court which has the jurisdiction to do so it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate it or it can reach a different conclusion. During such extended investigation, the officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back to that track. If they come to the same conclusion it is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made, and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in trouble. So from any point of view the Special Judge’s direction would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for the High Court in revision to predict that the Investigating Officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should have been left to the Investigating Officer to survey and recheck.

Supreme Court further held that when the Special Judge has opted to order for a further investigation, the High Court in revision against order should have stated to the CBI to comply with that direction. Nonetheless, the Special Judge or the Magistrate could not direct that a particular police officer or even an officer of a particular rank should conduct such further investigation. It is not within the province of the Magistrate while exercising the power under sec. 173(8) to specify any particular officer to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of the officer who should conduct such investigation. Supreme Court held that the direction made by the Special Judge that further investigation shall be conducted by an officer of the DIG rank of the CBI stood deleted.

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     07 November 2008

dear kcs and shree,

                                        thanks for citations and discussions.latest judgment shall prevail.on searching further i found in Randhir singh RANA VS sTATE  BEING THE  DELHI ADMINISTRATION -AIR 1997 sc 639----the magistrate of his OWN can not order for further investigation. being sr member pls go through the judgment. for any further discussion since this relates to compliance of s 173 crpc.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     09 November 2008

The ambit of Magistrial Power under section 156, 173, 190, 200, and 202 of the Criminal procedure Code and its various stages is covered by the celebrated case of Deverpallai Lakshminaryan Reddy Vs V.Narayana Reddy, AIR 1976 SC 1672, by the observation of Justice Sarkaria. This case discussed the power of the Magistrate at various stages under Crpc. Additional citation is the case of Tula Ram vs Kishore Singh as reported in AIR 1977 SC 2401 decided by S.Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S.Kailasam JJ.

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     09 November 2008


bhupender sharma (head)     07 January 2010

there is latest judgement of the supreme court in this regard 2009(9) SCC 129 titled as Reeta nag v/s State of west bengal  held that unless the investigation officer applies for firther investigation magistrate has no power to direct  reinvestigation  or  the further investigation on his own after taking the cognizance of the final report.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register