Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet lacking fresh evidence after further investigation: Supreme Court
In the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet submitted after further investigation without containing fresh oral or documentary evidence would be impermissible under the law.
Reversing the findings of the High Court and Trial Court, Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan emphasized that when submitting a supplementary charge-sheet due to further investigation under Section 178(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer must mention new evidence to substantiate conclusions. A supplementary charge-sheet lacking investigative rigor and failing to meet the requisites of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is impermissible.
The appellants-accused sought discharge before the trial court, but it was rejected. Subsequently, the trial court allowed police to submit a supplementary charge-sheet after directing further investigation based on the complainant's application. The supplementary charge-sheet added charges under Sections 468, 471, 201 of IPC, and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 against the appellants.
The trial court and the High Court dismissed the appellants' discharge applications. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether framing charges based on the supplementary charge-sheet following further investigation is legally sustainable.
The Court emphasized that a supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted only when new evidence is obtained by the Investigating Officer. In this case, the supplementary charge-sheet relied on the same lab report as the original charge-sheet, lacking new evidence.
The court observed that the trial court's order allowing further investigation resulted in a mechanical investigation without adhering to the mandate of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. No new evidence to substantiate conclusions in the supplementary report was found.
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court's approach in framing charges based on the supplementary charge-sheet. Notably, the supplementary charge-sheet heavily relied on a private laboratory report, deemed frail and unreliable without corroborative proof.
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and the trial court's order directing further investigation.