Summary
A Class IV employee of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, charge-sheeted for misappropriating godown stock, sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court declined to quash. Relying on the audit report, it directed the Magistrate to order further investigation into the former District Manager, who had posted the employee as godown in-charge, and remarked that he had 'played the entire game' and used the employee as a scapegoat. The District Manager appealed, citing lack of hearing and limits on the inherent power. The Supreme Court held that Section 482 permits directing further investigation in exceptional cases. It found that course justified here, and held that a prior hearing is not invariably required. It effaced the High Court's prejudicial remarks, which pre-judged the investigation, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the High Court under Section 482 CrPC could direct the Magistrate to order further investigation into a person not named in the FIR or charge-sheet
- Whether the High Court had to hear that person before issuing such a direction
- Whether the High Court's adverse remarks against him were justified
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 173(8) does not limit the High Court's inherent power to direct further investigation or reinvestigation to secure the ends of justice, but the power is used sparingly and cannot dictate the angle or outcome of investigation. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Sections 156(3), 173(8) and 190(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Magistrate ordinarily holds the power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet, but that does not exclude the High Court's inherent jurisdiction in an appropriate case. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- Section 401(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The statutory right of hearing in revision under Manharibhai Kakadia did not apply to a Section 482 petition. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Held
- The Magistrate ordinarily directs further investigation under Section 173(8), but the High Court may under Section 482 direct further investigation or even reinvestigation where the investigation is not in the proper direction. The power must be used sparingly, and the High Court cannot direct investigation from a particular angle or that a particular person be prosecuted. (¶ 13)
- The audit report and departmental material pointing to the District Manager's role had been placed before the High Court. It could not ignore them merely because the informant, investigator and Magistrate had overlooked them, so the direction for further investigation was justified. (¶ 14)
- Remarks that the appellant 'played the entire game', was 'ultimately responsible' and had used the employee as a scapegoat pre-judged the outcome and could prejudice a fair investigation, so they were unwarranted and were effaced. (¶¶ 15, 16, 21)
- Popular Muthiah does not lay down a universal rule that the person to be investigated must be heard before such a direction; it depends on the facts. Remand for a hearing would serve no purpose here, since the allegations rest on documents and his office was undisputed. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Exoneration in departmental proceedings is not conclusive of criminal investigation. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The direction for further investigation stands, but the High Court's adverse observations against the appellant were effaced. All aspects were left open for the investigating agency, the sanctioning authority and the court.