ABDUL MAZID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the application submitted by the Investigating agencies for the purpose of re -investigation in the case.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final report has been submitted under Section 169 of the Cr.PC. He further submits that the learned Magistrate, has not passed any order on the final report. The contention of Mr. Bajwa, in that there is no provision under Section 169 of the Cr.PC to grant permission for the re -investigation or further investigation of the case. Mr. Bajwa, learned Counsel of the petitioners further submits that Section 173 Cr.PC does not apply as charge -sheet under Section 173 has not been filed.

(3.) FURTHER investigation or re -investigation will have to be distinguished because both of them carry different meanings, different powers and different duties. In a case of further investigation, there may be a possibility of the disclosure of the further evidence which may not be available to the Investigating Officer, at the time of submission of the report. The evidence may be in -existence but the Investigating Agency may be ignorant aboutt he existence and he comes to know about existence of the evidence from some other sources. In a case of re -investigation the possibility of remis may be there and the Investigating Agency superior in rank may consider that on account of remis on the part of the Investigating Agency the case should be re -investigated. The re -investigation should only be done only when there is a fresh material on record to satisfy the conscience of the authorities and the conscience of the officer that there was a remis on the part of the Investigating Agency and in the interest of justice it is necessary to have the re -investigation or fresh investigation. This Court has already taken the view earlier that the law should be interpreted in a way which will serve the cause of justice, even the criminal law including the IPC should be interpreted in a way which may meet the needs of justice of the present time. We should not shut our eyes to the changing pattern of the society. I am fortified in taking this view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay 0043/1957 : 1957CriLJ1346 . There Lordship held 'It is also well settled that the Court can exercise the powers which are necessary for just disposal of the case or in the interest of justice. It is not necessary that there should be any specific provision in the law. Unless by specific provision or implication of the law forbids the doing of the particular act, the Court has power to pass any order which may be necessary in the interest of justice.