Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bawa Singh. v. State of Punjab. - CRR-2068-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8178 (9 October 2006)

Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006 [1]


Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006

Date of Decision: October 12, 2006

Bawa Singh.



State of Punjab.


. . .

PRESENT:- Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.

. . .


This is a revision petition directed against Order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, whereby an application of the accused for discharge has been dismissed.

Gist of the case is that FIR bearing No.95 dated 21.6.1995 was lodged at the instance of the petitioners under Sections 392, 457 and 342 IPC. Subsequently, it seems that on secret information, the petitioners themselves were reported to be the offenders and therefore, a raid was conducted on 22.6.2005 wherein heavy recoveries were made. The final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was presented in Court against the petitioners on 10.9.2005. Having considered the material available on the Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006 [2]

final report, charge was framed against the petitioners on 13.1.2006.

It seems that an application for further investigation was made whereupon the police filed supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 25.5.2006 wherein, the petitioners have been exonerated.

On the basis of the supplementary challan, an application for discharge has been filed. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has considered the matter and the relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "............... Merely because after

presentation of challan u/s

420/182/120-B IPC, the

accused/applicants have succeeded in

moving the local police to present a

report u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in itself

cannot be the sole ground to

discharge them especially when a

charge u/s 182 r/w 120-B IPC stands

framed against all accused/applicants

vide order dated 13.1.2006. Although,

when the police want to conduct

further investigation, it does not

need any express permission from this

court, but under the guise of

conducting further investigation, the

police cannot enable itself in

conducting fresh or denovo

investigation. No reason has been

explained as to what made the police

to record fresh statement/s of

accused and some of their

neighbourers to reach a conclusion

regarding their innocence. It has

nowhere been mentioned in the

supplementary report as to what has

been done with the original

Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006 [3]

allegations of applicant Bawa Singh

when after reporting occurrence of

robbery at his house, he succeeded in

moving the police by getting an FIR

No.95 of 21.6.1995 lodged against

some unknown persons at Police

Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

Measured from this angle, it appears

that a fresh investigation was

conducted by the police so that this

time it may give a favourable verdict

in favour of accused/applicants. As

per the original version of applicant

Bawa Singh, the unidentified

assailants looted a licensed revolver

of his son Balwinder Singh and they

decamped from the scene of occurrence

in his own UNO Car No.Pb-10AM-4690.

It was further reported that those

unidentified assailants also took

away two bags containing currency

notes of Rs.26 lacs and

Rs.11,20,000/- as well as one brief

case containing currency notes of

Rs.6 lacs. In this way, besides

robbery of a licensed Revolver, a car

and currency notes, worth

Rs.43,20,000/- was reported to the

police, which made the police to

immediately recorded an FIR u/s

392/457/342 IPC, but during the

investigation, especially on

22.6.2005, the police recovered the

aforesaid black coloured bag

containing currency notes worth Rs.26

lacs from the possession of

accused/applicant Bawa Singh himself.

Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006 [4]

On the same day, another bag and

brief case, which were allegedly

taken away by the accused from the

house of accused/applicant Bawa Singh

were also recovered from the

possession of accused/applicant

Balwinder Singh and the said bag and

brief case contained a total sum of

Rs.17,20,000/-. As it was concluded

by the police that complainant Bawa

Singh in connivance with his co-

accused had mislead the police for

some oblique purpose, hence, instead

of proceeding against those unknown

and unidentified accused person, a

challan u/s 420/182/120-B IPC was

presented against Bawa Singh, his

family and servants and after hearing

ld. APP and learned defence counsel,

vide order dated 13.1.2006, a

charge/notice of accusations u/s 182

r/w 120-B IPC was framed against all

accused/applicants. If, in the light

of said investigation and evidence

collected by the police, the

supplementary report is considered,

it would amount to letting the police

to pass on a supplementary report,

which is a result of fresh

investigation and, which is not

permitted by law. Hon'ble Apex Court

in re:- K. Chander Shekhar Vs. State

of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998,

Supreme Court, page 2001, has laid

down that once investigation is

complete and the police submits

report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. after

Criminal Revision No.2068 of 2006 [5]

submission of report, although police

has a right to further investigate

u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C., but it has no

right for fresh investigation or re-

investigation and that investigating

agency cannot forward a fresh report

to Magistrate after submitting a

report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Hon'ble

Apex Court in re:- H.S. Bains,

Director Small Saving Cum Deputy

Secretary, Finance, Punjab,

Chandigarh Vs. State (Union

Territory, Chandigarh), reported in

1980(4) SCC, page 631 has laid down

that even if the police report

suggests that case against accused is

not made out and must be dropped, the

Magistrate may disagree with the

report and can take cognizance of

offence u/s 190(1)(b). Our own High

Court has laid down that report of

police is not final word. Magistrate

can proceed against accused of his

own if he find substance in the


Learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed arguments on the basis of the supplementary report. Perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order noticed above does not reflect any illegality or impropriety in the order.

There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.