S RAMAPANDIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After getting the admission of this revision, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kancheepuram, in Cri. M.B. No. 56/95 in C.C. No. 88/93, dated 10-5-1995, in a petition filed under S. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by and on behalf of the revision petitioner herein, declining to discharge the petitioner, who was the accused subsequently added by filing an amended charge-sheet in the above calendar case before the trial Court, as insisted by the Bar, the revision was heard in full on merits and it is disposed of by passing the following order.

(2.) The petitioner by name Ramapandian was working as a Sub-Inspector in Baluchettychatram Police Station between 5-9-1990 and 21-11-1991 and during that time the first accused by name one Sivaprakasam was working as a Grade I Police Constable in the same police station. In connection with certain criminal activities committed by the said Grade I Police Constable while he was entrusted with the duty to attend the Court, assist the prosecution to conduct cases against the accused and report the result of the same by making the relevant entries in the records of the police station, certain overt acts were found involving the criminal offences. After full investigation by the respondent police in Crime No. 8 of 1991 of Kancheepuram Police Station in Chengle-put M.G.R. (West) District by the District Crime Branch, the said first accused was charged with the offences under Ss. 466, 467 and 409, I.P.C. The cognizance of the said offences were taken against the said Sivaprakasam as the final report of the investigating agency revealed the same originally. In the list of witnesses submitted by the prosecution against the said accused, the petitioner was cited as witness No. 4. After taking cognizance, process has been issued and the accused entered appearance and he was questioned and thus, the progress of the trial was in the middle consuming certain amount of time. At this juncture, it appears from the case records, the investigating agency has filed an amended charge-sheet adding the petitioner as accused No. 2 before the trial Court for the offences under Ss. 109 and 466, 467, 409, I.P.C. and the Court below had accepted the said additional offences framed against the petitioner herein under S. 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was followed by the petitioner happen to file a quash proceedings in Crl. O.P. 7621/93 on the file of this Court under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C., to quash the entire proceedings before the trial Court which, however, on 6-10-1994 was dismissed with the direction to agitate the grounds before the trial Court. Accordingly, a petition under S. 330, Cr. P.C. was filed by and on behalf of the revision petitioner, praying for his discharge on the following grounds :-1. There are no materials whatsoever traced out in the investigation against the petitioner and in fact there was no scope for further investigation at all;2. The very fact that in the original investigation report the petitioner was cited as witness No. 4 of the prosecution and that so much so, it was rather curious to take him of and brand him as the co-accused by adding S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of mere assumption and surmises and that in short, there was no investigation at all made in this regard;

(3.) The investigating agency and the prosecution once submitted a case before a Court under S. 173, Cr. P.C. and persuaded the Court to identify the cognizance of certain offences and that afterwards during the pendency of the said case without the permission of the Court, the prosecution or the investigating agency have no right to file additional report suo motu or voluntarily rope in any person as the accused, which is totally against the spirit and scope of S. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and