Petitioner challenged the sanction of further investigation by Additional Sessions Court. Court held that directions by D.G. Police based on Prosecutor’s assessment did not constitute impermissible interference. Petition dismissed.
Petition to quash the order sanctioning further investigation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 25TH MAGHA 1928
Crl.MC.No. 368 of 2007()
-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2007 IN CRMP.21/2007 IN SC.243/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
K.T. SIMON, AGED 32, S/O. K.K. THOMAS, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, MALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH SRI.KOSHY GEORGE SRI.P.I.DAVIS
RESPONDENTS:
BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.NO. 368 OF 2007
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by Annexure-B order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on Annexure-A petition filed by the Investigating Officer. By the said order, further investigation under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was sanctioned. The petitioner was originally shown as accused; but in the final report filed no allegations were raised against him.
CRL.M.C.NO. 368 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
the Prosecutor was not justified in compelling the Investigating Officer to file a petition under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to conduct further investigation. Inasmuch as the decision has not been taken by the Investigating Officer himself and inasmuch as he has been prompted to take a decision to conduct further investigation under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. at the behest of Prosecutor, Annexure-A application and Annexure-B order are not sustainable, it is contended. The learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (AIR 2000 SC 1731). In particular, the learned counsel relies on the observations in para-12 of the said judgment.
CRL.M.C.NO. 368 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
CRL.M.C.NO. 368 OF 2007 -: 4 :-
pointing out the major flaws in the investigation to the Director General of Police and the Director General of Police, in turn, taking necessary action on the basis of such information placed before him. Annexure-A, I repeat does not at all indicate that
the decision was not taken by the Investigating Officer or against his wishes. It is evident that, after the instructions were given, he realised the need for further investigation.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
whether an order sanctioning further investigation under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., initiated based on a D.G. of Police’s instruction prompted by the Public Prosecutor, violates the Investigating Officer’
whether the Prosecutor’s assessment of investigation inadequacies communicated to the D.G. of Police justifies sanctioning further investigation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Sarala v. T.S. VeluDistinguished¶23
R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (AIR 2000 SC 1731) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.T. Simon
State of Kerala
Circle Inspector of Police
R. Basant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
