9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State Government to direct further investigation. 2. Legality of the Magistrate postponing consideration of the final report. 3. High Court's interference with the investigation under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the State Government to Direct Further Investigation: The Court examined whether the State Government was precluded from directing further investigation in a case where a report was submitted under s. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was held that the State Government, under its power of superintendence as provided by s. 3 of the Indian Police Act, 1861, has the authority to direct further investigation. The Inspector-General, Vigilance, being an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station, can exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout the State. The Court clarified that s. 173(8) of the Code, which allows further investigation by an officer in charge of a police station, does not curtail the State Government's power to direct further investigation. 2. Legality of the Magistrate Postponing Consideration of the Final Report: The Court addressed whether the Magistrate committed an illegality by postponing the consideration of the final report upon the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor until the completion of further investigation directed by the State Government. It was concluded that the Magistrate did not commit any illegality. The power of the Magistrate under s. 156(3) to direct further investigation is independent and does not conflict with the power of the State Government. The Court emphasized that the State Government's direction for further investigation was within its competence. 3. High Court's Interference with the Investigation Under Art. 226 of the Constitution: The Court examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the investigation and prohibiting further investigation while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was held that the High Court erred in interfering at the investigation stage, which is a domain reserved for the executive and police. The Court reiterated that the judiciary should not interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate cognizable offences unless there is a gross abuse of power. The High Court's direction to the Magistrate on how to dispose of the case was deemed an overreach and an usurpation of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and restored the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated February 24, 1979. The judgment clarified the scope of the State Government's power to direct further investigation, upheld the legality of the Magistrate's postponement of the final report consideration, and limited the judiciary's interference in the investigative process.
|
