HARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the fifth accused in S.C.No.325 of 2014 before the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. In the said case, the police conducted further investigation, and submitted supplementary final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein filed objection to the said report in the form of an application as CMP No.1523 of 2015. On hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge found that the objection is not sustainable, and thus overruled the objection by order dated 30.09.2015. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) On a perusal of the impugned order, I find that it is a purely interlocutory order which cannot be amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's grievance is that the supplementary final report filed by the police under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is somewhat contrary to the first final report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. If that is the grievance, the position is well covered by decisions.

(3.) In State v. Gopakumar [1988(1) KLT 924], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that additional report of further investigation made under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. must be solely regarding such evidence which was not collected, or which was not available earlier, when the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted. The question of acceptance or rejection of the additional final report of further investigation which is contrary to, or inconsistent with the additional report, is within the exclusive right and jurisdiction of the trial court, and under the guise of further investigation, the Investigating Officer cannot undo what is already done for an effective prosecution. In the said case, this Court explained that the report of further investigation only means the report in addition to the original one. It may have the effect of adding to, or subtracting from the original report. As regards acceptance of such a report, this Court again held in Jiji Thomson v. State of Kerala [2015 CrlJ 1635] that when such a report comes before the Court, it must be within the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the two reports, examine the contrary findings made by the Investigating Officer in the subsequent report, and decide whether the subsequent report contrary to the earlier report can be accepted, or whether any legal value can be attached to which. Thus I find, that, if at all the petitioner has a grievance that the additional report filed by the police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is inconsistent with the first report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it will have to be considered by the trial court, and appropriate course will have to be followed by the trial court as explained by this Court in the decisions cited supra. The impugned order in this case is a purely interlocutory order made as part of proceedings, and it cannot be quashed by this Court in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. because, such orders cannot be amenable to revisional jurisdiction. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.