N MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocates on both sides.

(2.) The petitioner's learned advocate has undoubtedly canvassed a very valid point when he submitted that in this case the petitioner was originally arrested on the basis of an allegation that the battery of the vehicle in question was stolen/disposed of by him. Petitioner's learned advocate states that if one were to look at the sequence of events, that the investigation was completed and the police are alleged to have recovered some battery at the instance of the accused; thereafter, a 'B' Report was filed which was accepted by the Court, but on the same day, the police filed a charge-sheet. It is not very clear from the record as to what precisely transpired, but the order of the learned Magistrate seems to indicate that some error had taken place and that the acceptance of the 'B' Report was revoked.

(3.) Essentially, the petitioner's learned advocate submits that undoubtedly the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 1995 Karnataka 2578 : (1996 Cri LJ 592) in the case of J. Alexander v. State of Karnataka which decision follows five other decisions, namely. (1) AIR 1979 SC 777 : 1979 Cri LJ 679, Kamalapati v. State of W.B. (2) AIR 1979 SC 1791 : (1979 Cri LJ 1346), Ramlal v. State. (3) AIR 1967 SC 1167 : (1979 Cri LJ 1081), Raghubans v. State. (4) 1966 (1) Mys. LJ 127 : (1966 Cri LJ 1033), Kishan v. State. (5) 1988 (2) All Crl LR 952, State v. Gopa Kumar. postulates that in a given situation, where it is established that further investigation into the case is necessary or that fresh facts or material or evidence has come to the notice of the investigating authority, that the acceptance of the 'B' Report is no bar of the continuance of the proceedings. The point raised in this case is slightly different. The petitioner's learned advocate submits that there is no further or fresh material that is involved in this proceeding, but that at the highest, the prosecution contends that the filing of the 'B' Report in the first instance was erroneous. Petitioner's learned advocate submits that effectively, what is being done is that the earlier record is being reviewed and the Court is now being told that on the basis of that very material, an offence is made out and that therefore, the acceptance of the 'B' Report should be revoked. The learned advocate submits that this procedure is not contemplated by law, particularly under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and he advances the submission that the conclusion once arrived at that there is no ground to proceed against the accused would bind the prosecution unless some further or fresh evidence or material is forthcoming.