OM PARKASH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 1284 of 1963 directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, declining to make a reference to this Court for revensing the order of the Magistrate summoning Kuldip Singh approver after having recorded the entire prosecution evidence and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1131 of 1963 made under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings before the Committing Magistrate. In both petitions, the accused Om Parkash, Yash Pal, Brij Kishore and Roshan Lal are the Petitioners.

(2.) THE Petitioners have been prosecuted under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code. Kuldip Singh, another accused person had been absconding and was arrested on 25th of August, 1963. Although the name of Kuldip Singh had been included in the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was not mentioned that he was to be made an approver. It is common ground that the case for the prosecution was closed on 29th of August, 1963 when the statements of the Petitioners were recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The arguments were heard and the case was fixed for pronouncement of orders on 31st of August, 1963. What happened on 31st of August, 1963, has been made the subject -matter of the petition for revision. On that day, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution that Kuldip Singh who was to be tendered pardon by the District Magistrate and this was actually done on 2nd of September, 1963, was prepared to make a statement as an approver. His statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by a Magistrate on 3rd of September, 1963. As a result of the subsequent developments, the police submitted a supplementary report under Section 173 of the Code and it was prayed that Kuldip Singh's statement should be recorded under Sub -section (2) of Section 337 of the Code. The learned Magistrate acceded to the request made by the police and directed that Kuldip Singh should be summoned as an approver and his statement under Section 337(2) of the Code recorded. From this order passed by the Magistrate on 19th of September, 1963, a petition for revision was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who having declined to make a recommendation to the High Court for its interference by his order of 24th of October, 1963, a petition for revision (Cr. R. 1284 of 1963) has been preferred. Mr. Babu Ram Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that Section 173 of the Code envisages only one report which is the essential basis for investigation. It is submitted by him that the Magistrate having taken cognizance on a report under Section 173 is precluded from taking note of any supplementary report. Sub -section (1) of Section 173 provides that:

(3.) THERE is nothing in the language of this section to support the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the investigation on which a Magistrate takes cognizance is full and complete. Indeed, there is authority for the proposition that the number of investigations into a crime that can be made by the police is not limited by law and that when one has been completed another can be made. In a Division Bench of the Madras High Court of Phillips and Krishnan JJ. in Divakar Singh v. A. Ramamurthi Naidu, 19 Cri. LJ 901, it was observed thus: