Police Can Further Investigate Even After Chargesheet Submission; Magistrate's Permission Not Required: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the Petition filed by a postal officer who was accused of facilitating illegal currency exchange worth Rs. 1.04 crore during demonetization.

Two different stages of investigation undertaken in the criminal offence registered by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) were challenged before the Court.

A Single Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed, "It is well settled that the police has a right to further investigate even after submission of charge sheet before the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers u/s 173(8) of the Code. It has been statutorily recognized that there is no requirement that before initiating further investigation, the investigating agency must take permission of the Magistrate concerned, as further investigation is distinct from re-investigation / de novo investigation or fresh investigation."

Advocate Rahul Sharma represented the Petitioner while APP Tirthraj Pandya and Advocate RC Kodekar represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A written complaint was filed against the accused persons including Senior Post Master, Head Office, Ahmadabad; Deputy Post Master, Navrangpura, Head Office, Ahmadabad; Assistant Post Master, Navrangpura; and an unknown person under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(C) and (d) of the PC Act. It was alleged that during demonetization, old currency was exchanged by post office also and during inspection by Department of Post (Vigilance), Ahmadabad, it was revealed that Navrangpura HO, post office acted against the guidelines issued in this behalf by the Government and in contravention to the circulars issued in this behalf by the Directorate of postal services.

The Petitioner was the controlling officer at Ahmadabad circle and he allegedly abused his official power and exchanged old currency during demonetization to the tune of Rs. 1,04,03,500/- from the different Post Offices/persons under his jurisdictions. Chargesheet was filed by the CBI and all the eight witnesses informed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) that they know nothing about the matter. However, the ACJM did not record their statements and directed them to appear. Consequently, their statements were recorded one after another on the same day within a space of less than three hours. Hence, the Petitioner was before the High Court, seeking quashing of the supplementary chargesheet.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Coming back to the case on hand, it is noticeable that in final report filed u/s 173(2) of the Code against the petitioner dated 14.6.2017 showcase that the investigating officer has reserved his right to file prosecution sanction u/s 19 of the Act, as at the relevant time, it was not obtained during investigation. Prosecution sanction u/s 19 of the Act is incumbent to take cognizance of the charges under the Act levelled in the FIR.”

The Court said that further investigation is just continuance of the investigation, which has already been done and to find out the facts in continuation of the facts, which are forming part of the final report and which were left out during the investigation.

“However, fresh, de novo or reinvestigation has effect of wiping out the investigation already done and to start it from the beginning or from its inception”, it added.

The Court further observed that the principal allegation against the Petitioner is misuse of his power and facilitating exchange of demonetized notes in the post office.

“The supplementary charge sheet filed on 27.2.2018 u/s 173 of the Code at Annexure A reveals two aspects. Firstly, source of old currency exchanged by the petitioner – the then DPS, Ahmedabad and secondly, filing of prosecution sanction u/s 19 of the Act in respect of all charge sheeted accused. Either of the act of the investigating officer cannot be held as de novo, fresh or re-investigation. It is in continuation of the earlier part of the investigation”, it also noted.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions.

Cause Title- Manoj Kumar v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:42612)

Click here to read/download the Judgment