# [2017] 4 S.C.R. 105 - **Citation:** [2017] 4 S.C.R. 105 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2017 - **Case number:** CriminalAppealNo.1171of2016 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2017-4-s-c-r-105-31951 - **Pages:** 32 ## Headnote [2017]4 S.C.R. 105 , . AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI .PATEL _ ,_. A t I J ~ J ' ... • ' ~ j -· ' ,_ ... : •• SUMANBHAI KA!'JTIBi-r.AI P~T,EL &o~s. ' . - {CriminalAppealNo.1171of2016) --·- FEBRUARY02, 20!7 ,. :, . ""'. ·" B '' [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] ', .1 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.ll3(Bj - P~wer,of Magistrate to direct ftlrther investigatiOn suo motu 01~ acting oi1 'I he request or prayer of the complainantlinforma11t '.after cognizance and appearance of the- accused person - Held: Neither the Magistrate suo motu nor 0J1 mi application filed by the 'coinJJlainarltl informant has power to direct ftirther i11vestigaiio11 · - Such a course i'vould be open only on the request of the inve~:tigating agency and that too; in circumstmices \'varranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence o_nly to ~·ecure fair_ investigation and trial.'... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 -'s.113. · · · - · . _ 1 . _ ·· _.. 1 . , ~ 4 rl i l~ l 'I . Dismissing the appeal, the Court iiEiD: 1.1: A plain comparison of Section 173, CrPC, 1973 and, 18~8. would amply demonstrate that though these.relate to the report of a police officer on completion of investigation and the ste1>s to ensue pursuant thereto, outlining as well the duties _of.the officer in-cliarge of the concerned police station, amongst others to communicate, the action taken by him to th~ 1>erson, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given, it is explicit that the recast provisi.oii of tl1e 1973 Code did incorporate sub-clause 8 as a significant addition to the earlier provision. The Forty-first Report of the Law Commission .of India on. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 dealt with the aspect of reopening of investigation in the context of the existing Section 173 of the Code 1898. [Paras 15, 16] (119-11; 120-A] 1.2. The Bill to consolidate and amend the law relatil1g to criminal procedure followed a'nd was circulated in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, published on' December 10, 1970 proposing, the Code of Crimhial Procedure, 1970. The Statenlent of Objects and Reasiins 'Clearly disClosed ·that the 105 c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2017]~ S.C.R, ·. A recominendati~lis of th~ Commission tooverhaul tlie Cod~ 1898 as made were )ccepted. and vis-a-vis Section i 73, ~hich corresponded to Section 176 ii! the.·· report. tbe, amendment· .. pi'opose4 was to facilitate. collectio1i of evide1ice .by the police after filing Jhe cl1arge•sheet. and productil)n thereof before ~he Court, subject to the. accused being given usual facilities for co11ies. The remodelled Section 173 was identical fo form and . substance to tlie one, as proposed by the Commission in. chime· · . lvit11 its recommendation as contain.ed in the Report. Sub-Clause . . (7) of the new Section '173, as proposed by the Comniissiol.1 and ·. integrated inthe BHI, however eve11tuaHy appeared as sub,clause · C ·. · (8}to the. Section under Code 1973~ · Tlie newly added sub~se.ction · (8), as Its text evinces, permits further investigatio1l bf ti1e · ·. concerned officer. in~charge of die police sfatio1fin respect· of an' ·. offence after a report under sub-secti1nl l had. ~een forwarded to · the Magistrat(i!nd also to lay before(he Magistrate aJurther ·• D. report,)n .the form prescribed, whe1:.e. μporfsucb investigat~on, ile obtains fiirther evide1Jce, oral or docu1i1e11tary. Jt .is fiirther ' orclailled that s to ensue pursuant thereto, outlining as well the duties _of.the officer in-cliarge of the concerned police station, amongst others to communicate, the action taken by him to th~ 1>erson, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given, it is explicit that the recast provisi.oii of tl1e 1973 Code did incorporate sub-clause 8 as a significant addition to the earlier provision. The Forty-first Report of the Law Commission .of India on. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 dealt with the aspect of reopening of investigation in the context of the existing Section 173 of the Code 1898. [Paras 15, 16] (119-11; 120-A] 1.2. The Bill to consolidate and amend the law relatil1g to criminal procedure followed a'nd was circulated in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, published on' December 10, 1970 proposing, the Code of Crimhial Procedure, 1970. The Statenlent of Objects and Reasiins 'Clearly disClosed ·that the 105 c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2017]~ S.C.R, ·. A recominendati~lis of th~ Commission tooverhaul tlie Cod~ 1898 as made were )ccepted. and vis-a-vis Section i 73, ~hich corresponded to Section 176 ii! the.·· report. tbe, amendment· .. pi'opose4 was to facilitate. collectio1i of evide1ice .by the police after filing Jhe cl1arge•sheet. and productil)n thereof before ~he Court, subject to the. accused being given usual facilities for co11ies. The remodelled Section 173 was identical fo form and . substance to tlie one, as proposed by the Commission in. chime· · . lvit11 its recommendation as contain.ed in the Report. Sub-Clause . . (7) of the new Section '173, as proposed by the Comniissiol.1 and ·. integrated inthe BHI, however eve11tuaHy appeared as sub,clause · C ·. · (8}to the. Section under Code 1973~ · Tlie newly added sub~se.ction · (8), as Its text evinces, permits further investigatio1l bf ti1e · ·. concerned officer. in~charge of die police sfatio1fin respect· of an' ·. offence after a report under sub-secti1nl l had. ~een forwarded to · the Magistrat(i!nd also to lay before(he Magistrate aJurther ·• D. report,)n .the form prescribed, whe1:.e. μporfsucb investigat~on, ile obtains fiirther evide1Jce, oral or docu1i1e11tary. Jt .is fiirther ' orclailled that pl. SCR SJ7; Master . · · Construction Company (P) Lid. v: State iifOrissa at1d miother AIR1966SC1047 : {1966] SCR 99; Ral1dhi1' . . Singh Rana v. Stqte (Delhi Ad11iinistratio11) (1997) 1 sec . .. 361 : (1996] 10 Suppl. SCR880; Dinesh [Jalmia 1: CBI .. (2007) 8 sec 710. _: relied OJI. . . . . . . . . . Aniit Kapoo~ v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 .. ·.· SCC 460 : (2012) 7 SCR 988; State of Pzmjab v. CBF ·· and others (20U) 9 SCC.182: {2011]11- SCR 28l;.: · ·Minu Ku;nari and another .v. State ofBihar and others · (200.6) A SCC 359 : p006J 3, SCl'l loS6; llemant . - . DhaSincma v:. CBI and another (2001) 7 SCC $36 : · . [2001]. l Suppl. S<;R 646 ~ Distinguished; . J. Chapter XIV of the Code d~lineates the c1>ndition:~ . . requisite for initiation of 1iroc~etli11gs before a Magistrate. Section .·. ·· 190, which deals _with cognizance of offences by Magistrate, sets .·· out tbafany Magistrat~ of the fil"st Class and .any Magistrate. of . ·the second dass, specially empolvered, as conteni plated, may take . cognizance ofany offence either μpon receiyiug a co.1ilJ>lai11t of 108 A B c D E F· G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 4 S.C.R. facts which constitute such offence or. upon a police report of such facts. or upon· information received from· any person other . . , . than the police officer, or upon his own knowie4ge that such offence had been committed.' Section 156, which equips a police officer with the power to investigate a cognizable case mandates vide sub-section 3 thereof that any Magistrate empowered under Sectio'n 190 may order such an investigation. The procedure for dealing with com11laints to Magistrate is lodged under Chapter XV of the Code. Section 202 appearing .therein predicates that any Magistrate on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which had been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he tbinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he .exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by 1 such other person as he thinks flt for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The contents of this text of Section 202(1) of the Code unmistakeably attest that the investigation that can be directed by the Magistrate, to be undertaken by a poli~e officer would essentially be in the form of an enquiry for the singular purpose of enabling him to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complai~t of an offence, of which he is authorised to take cognizance. This irrefutably is at the pre-cog1iizance stage and thus logically before the issuance of process to the accused and his attendance in response thereto. Whereas Section 311 of the Code empowers a Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to suinmon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if construed to be essential to be just decision of the case, Section 319 authorizes a Court to proceed against any person, who though not made an accused appears, in course of the inquiry or trial, to have 'committed the same and can be tried together. These two • ~' " - • 4 • ,/ provisions of the Code explicitly accoutre a Court to summon a mat~aa1 wit~ess or exanih1e a person present at any 'stage of ~ny I • I I ' , , 1 I : > ~ iiiq u1~y; tdal or ot~e~ pi:oce.eding, if ~t considers it to be essenJial to the just decision of the case and eve'n proceed against any • • I , j •: I ' , • _ : • J • ._) I ' , L I. AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI I 09 KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. person, though not·an accused in such enquiry or trial, ifit appears A from the evidence available that he had committed an offence and that he can be tried together with the other accused persons. [Para 46) [ 133-G-I-I; 134-A-G] 4. Though the investigaHng agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtained its approval, no such power is available therefor to the Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation 011 the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand. [Para 47) [134-1-1; 135-A-C] 5. The un-amended and the amended .sub-Section (8) of Section 173 of the Code if read in juxtaposition, would overwhelmingly attest that by the latter, the investigating agency/ officer alone has been authorized to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the l>roceedings relatable thereto. This power qua the investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41" Report which manifestly heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its (Jroposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. [Para 48) [135-D) 6. In contradistinction, Sections 156, 190, 200, 202 and 204 of the Cr.P.C clearly outline the powers of the Magistrate and the courses open for him to chart in the matter of directing invesligation, taking of cognizance, framing of charge, etc. Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance' is taken and the accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of B c D E F G H 110 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.·· any competence to. direct further investigation either suo n19tu or acting on the .request or prayer o( the complainantfinfo~;nant. . The direc~ion f~r investigation by tl1e Magistrate under Se'etion ' 202, wbile dealing with a coi:l1plaii1t; tho'ugh' is at a post-cogi1izance stage, it is in the nature· of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such a direction for investigation is not in the nature of further investigation, as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Code. . ' Had it been the intention of the legislature to invest such a power, Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C would have been worded accordingly to accommodate and ordain the same having regard to the C . backdrop of the incorporation thereof. In a way, in view of the three options open to the Magistrate; after a report is submitted by the police on completion of the investigation, the Magistrate, in both the contingencies, namely; when he takes cognizance of the offence or discharges the accused, would be committed to a D E F G H course, whereafter though the investigating agency may for good reasons inform him and seek his permission to conduct further investigation, he suo motu cannot embark upon such a step or take that initiative on the req nest or prayer made by the complainant/informant. Not only such power to the Magistrate to direct further investigation suo motu or on the request or prayer of the complainant1informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, pursuant to the process, issued or is dis'Charged is incompatible with the statutory design and dispensation, it would even otherwise render the provisions of Sections 311 and 319 Cr.P.C., whereunder any witness can be summoned by a Court and a person can be issued notice to stand trial at any stage, in a way redundant. Axiomatically, thus the impugned decision annulling the direction of the Magistrate for further investigation is unexceptional and does not merit any interference. Even otherwise on facts, having regard to the progression of the developments in the trial, and more particularly, the delay on the part of the informant in making the request for further investigation, it was otherwise not entertainable as has been rightly held by the High Court. [Para 49] [135-E-H; 136-A-F] Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. (1985) 2 sec 537 : [1985] 3 SCR 942 - relied on. AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI 111 KANTlBHAI PATEL & ORS. Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State through Inspector A of Police and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 : [2015] 6 SCR 1002 - distinguished. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2012] 1~ SCR 1005; King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; Abhi11a11da11 B Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1967] SCR 668; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 5 SCC 347 : [2004] 3 SCR 762 - referred to. Case Law Reference c (1<)79) 2 sec 322 relied on Para6 AIR 1945 PC18 referred to Para 7 (1967] SCR 668 referred to Para8 · [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 880 relied on Paras D 12Q041 3 SCR 762 referred to Para9 120091 13 SCR 276 relied on Pal'a 10 (19851 3 SCR 942 relied on Para 22 (1~781 1 SCR 615 relied Oil Para 29 E [1976] Suppl. SCR 524 relied Oil Para 31 (19621 Suppl. SCR 817 relied on Para 32 [1966] SCR 99 relied on Para 32 (2007) s sec 770 relied Oil Para 32 F [2012] 13 SCR 1005 referred to ·. · Para 34 12Q121 7 SCR 988 distinguished Para 36 120111 11 SCR 281 distinguished Para 37 G 120061 3 SCR 1086 distinguished Para 38 1200111 Suppl: SCR 646 distinguished Para38 (2015] 6 SCR 1002 distinguished · Para 4'2 H 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. B c D E F G H 1171 of20!6. From ti1e Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 2268 of 2014. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., D. N. Ray, Tattvam Patel, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishan, Nitin Sangra, Brijraj Jhala, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Zakir Hussain, D. Khanna, Shamik Sanjanwala, Ms. Hemantika · Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Advs. for the Respondents. .• The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMITAVA ROY, J. · 1. The assail is of the verdict dated 10.04.2015 rendered by the High Court, setting at naught the order dated 27 .5.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the appellant, the original informant, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Code/1973 Code") for further investigation by the police. 2. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mis. Zakir Hussain, Nitya Ramakrishan, and Shamik Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively. 3. The facts indispensable for the present adjudication, portray that the appellant had lodged a First Information Repo11 (for short hereafter referred to as "FIR") against the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477B and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code · (for sho11 also referred to as "!PC"). The materials offered in the FIR and the investigation by the police that followed, divulged that there was a dispute between the parties relating to agricultural land and that the appellant/informant had alleged forgery of the signatures and thumb impression of his as well as of his family members in the register maintained by the Notary (Public). After the charge-sheet was submitted, charge was framed against the respondents and they stood the trial accordingly, as they denied the imputations. As would be gleanable from the records, the oral evidence of the appellant/first informant was concluded on 03 .07.2012 followed by that of the investigating officer of AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] the case on 10.09.2013. Subsequent thereto, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC on 03.12.2013, whereafter an application was filed at the cu-Jminating stages of the trial by the appellant/informant seeking a direction under Section I 73(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police and in parti~ular to call for a repo1t.from the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards one particular page of the register of the Notary(Public), which according to the appellant/informant was of debatable authenticity, as it appeared to have been affixed/pasted with another page thereof. To be precise, this application was filed at a stage when the case was fixed for final , arguments. 4. The Trial Court, however, by the order impeached before the High Court granted the prayer made and issued a direction to the police for further investigation. Significantly, prior thereto in Special Leave Petition being SLP (Cr!.) No.9106 of 2010, this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the trial. It is also worthwhile to record that the application filed by the appellant/infonnant under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC had been opposed by the respondents herein, who being dissatisfied with the. order of the Trial Court, thus impugned the same before the High . Court. 5. The High: Court, as the impugned decision would disclose exliaustively· examined the purport of Section 173(8) in the particular cmitext of the scope of flirther investigation by the police after it had submitted a charge sheet and the Trial Court had taken cognizance on the basis. thereof and had proceeded with the trial, 'following the appearance of the accused persons. It, amongst others took note of the 41" Report of the Law Commission of India which after reflecting 0n the oftly adopted view of the Courts that once a final report under Section 173 had been submitted by the police, the latter could not touch the case again and reopen the investigation, recommended that it ought to be .. made clear that und.er the said provision of the Code, it was sti II permissible for the.police to examine any evidence even after the submission of the charge-sheet and to submit a report to the Magistrate. Thus, tl1e Law Commission's emphasis was to obviate any'hindrance in the way of the investigating agency, which 'in certain fact situations could be unfair to the prosecution as well :as to the accused. . · . ' . 6. The High Court having regard to this recommendation and the incorporation of Section 173(8) as a sequitur thereof held that it was 113 A B c D E F G H 114 A B c D E ·F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S .C.R. . pennissible for the investigating officer or the officer-in-charge of the police station to undertake a further investigation evenafter the filing of the charge sheet, but neither the informant nor the accused could claim as a matter of right, any direction from the Court directing such further investigation under the said provision after a charge-sheet was filed. The High Court traced the law as expounded by this Court from its renderings in R(lmL(l/ N(lra11g v. State (DelhiAd111i11istratio11), (1979) 2 SCC 322 vis-a-vis the scope and purport of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in particular, qua further investigation by the police after it had submitted charge-sheet in a case. The exposition by this Court in Ram L(l/ N(lrm1g (supra) that neither Sections 173 nor 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did suggest exhaustion of the power of the pol ice to further investigate even after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence already on record and that the police could exercise such· right as often as necessary when fresh information would come to light and it desired to make further investigation was noted. However, while doing so, it was observed that in deference to the Court, the police ought to ordinarily seek its formal permission to make further investigation. The High Court in this perspective, observed that a fu11her investigation could in a given factual setting, sub-serve the interest of the prosecution and even of the defence. 7. The High Court in its verdict also adverted to the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja N(/zir Ahmad,· AIR 1945 PC 18 which stressed upon the restraint of the jt:1diciary against interference with the police in matters which were within its province, holding that the·roles of these two institutions Wt:re complet'nentary and not overlapping, subject however to the right of the Courts to intervene· in an approp~iate <;a~e ,for directions in the nature ofhapeas corpus. -8. The decision of this Court in Ablii11mulm1 J/w & Ors. v. Dilleslt · · Mis/if([,· AIR 1968 SC 117 to the effect that the Magistrate <:ould not direct the police the course of investigation or to submit a charge-sheet when it had already submitted a final report, was referred to as well. Reference to the explication of law laid down by this Court in Rm1d/1ir Si11glt Rana v. State (Del/ti Admillistratio11), ( 1997) I SCC 361 on the powers available to a Magistrate at different stages of a case before him in the singular context of its competence to direct further investigation with reference thereto, was relied upon. It was noted as well that a Magistrate, of his own, could not order fu11her investigation after an AMRUTBHAl SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI 115 KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] accused, pursuant to the process issued against him on the basis of the A charge-sheet already submitted, had appeared in the case. 9. The pronouncement of this Court in llaswiblwi Valiblwi Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 5 SCC 347 ruling that the police had the power to conduct further investigation de hors any direction from the Couit even after it had taken cognizance was relied upon to reinforce its conclusion. 10. The enumeration of this Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bei1gal & Ors., (2009) 9· SCC 129 also to the same effect was adverted to .. The High Court thus deduced on the basis of an in-depth survey of the state of law, as above, on the import and ambit of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. that in absence of any application or prayer made by the investigating authority for further investigiition in the case, the Trial Coutt had erred in allowing the application filed by the appellant/infomiant for the same. 11. Without prejudice to this finding, the High Court was further of the ·view that having regard to the sequence of events and the delay on the part ofthe informai1t to make such a prayer at the closing stages B c D of the trial, it was not entertainable. In arriving at this determination, the High Court, amongst others marked that the evidence of the appellant/ infonnant had been recorded in the year 2012 when he did have sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the document in question but for inexplicable reasons did wa·it for more than two years to register the prayer for . E further investigation. It was of the view that the attendant factual setting did not demonstrate any defective investigation which demanded curation through a further drill and that in any view of the matter, additional report from the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been called for. This is more so, as in the view of the High Court, the entire register of the Notary (Public) had been seized by the investigating officer and that any· unusual or suspicious feature therein would have been certainly examined by the FSL and .findings in connection therewith recorcied. The High Court thus interferedwith the order of the Magistrate permitting further investigation by the police in the case and ordered for expeditious disposal of the trial. . • . . .; :.. . · ·". .12. Whereas:the learned·;senioi' counsel for·the· appellant has sttenuouslyurged that the impugned order is patently indefensible, · . •;inasmuch as, If maintained, it would result io traves.ty of justice and that · not only the Trial Court was within its .competence to order further investigation in the attendant facts and circumstances but also the same F G H 116 A B c D E· F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. was essential to unravel the truth bearing on the charge level led against the respondents-accused, the impugned order has been endorsed on behalf of the respondents pleading that the same has been in abidance of the consistent judicially pronounced postulations qua the scope and purport of Section 173{8) Cr.P.C. and that no interference therewith. is warranted. 13. Having regard to'the contentious assertions, expedient it would be to retrace the law propounded by this Court on the impo11 and impact of Section 173 Cr.PC, with particular reference to sub-Section (8) thereof. For immediate reference, the afore-stated provision is.extracted in full as hereunder: · "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (I) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (IA) The investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months from the date on which the information was recorded b:y the officer in charge of the police station. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a repo11 in the forin prescribed by the State Government, dtatlng- · · · · . (a) the names of the pa11ies; (b) the nature of the information; · (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; ( d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; ( e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather . with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170; (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI 117 KANTIBHAIPATEL & ORS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] has been attached where investigation relates to an offence A under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 3760 of the Indian Penal Code ( 4~ of 1860). · (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the informatio.n relating to the B conimission of the offence was first given. . (3) Where a superior officer of police has beeri appointed under section 158, the report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be sub111itted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the c Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation, ( 4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order- for the discharge of such bond or otherwise D as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- , (a) all. documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the . · E prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate. during investigation; · .. (b) the statements- recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to exami11e ·as its witnesses. F (6) lfthe police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject~ matter of the proceedings or:that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the G Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be ·granted to · the accused and stating his reasc,ms for making 5uch request. : · (7) Where the· police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do; he may furnish to the accused copies of aH or . any ofthe documents referred to in sub- section (5). H 118. A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemt:d 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- 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 subse~t_ion (2)." 14. It would be appropriate at this juncture to set out as well the Section I ?3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 18.98. ·"Section 173. Report of police-officer.- (!) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police-statioi1 shall- ( a) forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police-report a report, in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody, or has been released on his bond,· and, if so, whether. with or without sureties, and (b) communicate, in such. manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (2) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any cases in which the State Government by general or special· order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, .direct the officer in charge of the police-station to make further investigation. (3) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. ( 4) After forwarding a report under this section, the officer in charge of the police-station shall, before the commencement of the inquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the report forwarded under sub-section (I) and of the first information report recorded under section 154 and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, inc Ju ding the statements and confessions, if atiy recorded under section 164 and the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section{ 4), ifthe police-officer is ofopinion that any part ofany state11ient recorded under sub-section (3) of section I 61 is not relevant to the subjectmatter of the inquiry or trial of that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interests, he shall exclude such part from the copy of the statement furnished to the accused and in such a cause, he shall make a report to the Magistrate stating his reasons for excluding such part. Provided that at the commencement of the inquiry or trial, the Magistrate, shall after perusing the part so excluded and considering the report of the police-officer, pass such orders as he thinks fit and ifhe so directs, a copy of the part so excluded or such.portion thereof, as he thinks proper, shall be furnished to the acc1,1sed. 15. A plain comparison of these two prqvisions would amply demonstrate that though these relate to the report of a police officer on completion of investigation and the steps to ensue pursuant thereto, outlining as well the duties of the officer ip-charge of the concerned police station, amongst others to communicate, the action taken by him to the person, ifany, by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given, it is explicitthat the recast provision of the 1973 Code did incorporate sub-clause.8 as a significant addition tot11e earlier provision. · · 119 A B c D E F G H .. 120 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. I 6. The Fo11y-first Report of the Law Commission of India (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Commission") on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 dealt with the aspect of reopening of investigation in the context of the existing Section l 73 of the Code 1898 and recommended in the following terms: "14.23: A report under section I 73 is normally the end of the investigation. Sometimes, however, the police officer after submitting the report under section l 73 comes upon evidence bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. We should have thought that the police officer can collect that evidence and send it to the magistrate concerned. It appears, however, that courts have sometimes taken the narrow· view that once a final report ynder section 173 has been sent, the police cannot touch the case again and cannot re-open the investigation. This view places a hindrance in the way of the investigating agency, which can be very unfair to the prosecution and. for that matter, even to the accused. It should be made clear in section 173 that the competent police officer can examine such evidence and send a report to the magistrate. Copies concerning the fresh material must of course be furnished to the accused." 17. The Commission in the above perspective proposed a revision ofSecti011173 of Code 1898 ii1 the following terms: "14.24: We propose that section 173 should be r~vised as follows:- 173. (I) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) As soon as it is completed, the officer in ch!ttge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a po 1 ice-report a report, in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the parties; G (b) the nature of the information; H (c) the nmnes ofthe persons who appear to be acquainted with the circums~ances of the case; ( d) l1ihether any offence appears to have been committed,' a11d · if so, by whom; AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL v. SUMANBHAI 121 KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.] (e) whether the accused has be(!n arrested; A (f) whether he has been released on his bond under section 169, and, if so, whether with or without sureties,- (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. The officer shall also corilmunicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. B (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any cases in which the State C Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted · through ~hat officer, and he may; pending. the orders of the Magistrate, direct that officer in charge of the police-station to make further investigation. ( 4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police-officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- ( a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and D E (b) the statements recorded under ..... section 161 of all persons F whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any pait of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the.accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate G that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrlfte to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. H 122 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20)7] 4 S.C.R. . (7) 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. 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-sections (2) to (5) shall, as fa..-·as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report under sub-section (2)." 18. The Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure followed and was circulated in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, published on December 10, 1970 proposing, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1970.