Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030006152023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./12/2023 Shri J Lalduhzuala and 4 Ors s/o J Rinsanga r/o Chhingchhip Venglai Serchhip District, Mizoram 2: Shri Lalremliana 3: Smt. F Lalrimawii 4: Shri K Vanlalhruaia 5: Shri H Rohnun VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary, Home Department, Aizawl Mizoram and Anr Aizawl2:The Senior Superintendent of Polic Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalremtluanga Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl.PP, Mizoram Page No.# 2/6 ::: B E F O R E ::: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Date of Hearing & Judgment : 04.02.2025 J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (Oral) Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By filing this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC, the petitioners pray for setting aside and quashing the impugned Order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) in ACB Case No. 9/2023 by which, the learned Trial Court declined to accept the final report of the Investigating Agency stating that a prima facie has not been found against the instant petitioners. The learned Trial Court by giving its own findings directed re-investigation of the case. [2.] Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court does not have the power to direct for re-investigation of the case or directing de-novo investigation. Such powers are conferred only upon the constitutional courts and that even in such case, courts are required to pass a specific order with regard to the fate of the investigation already conducted and the report so filed before the Court of the learned Magistrate. He submits that the learned Trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 407 to Page No.# 3/6 direct the re-investigation of the case. However, the said decision is in respect of making further investigation in the case and not re-investigation. He therefore submits that the impugned Order having been passed on the basis of wrong appreciation of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the same should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 (2) Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) 5 SCC 802 (3) Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 (4) SCR 1144 and (4) Neetu Kumar Nagaich Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 777. [3.] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there is no provisions under the Cr.PC by which the Trial Court can direct re-investigation of a case. If the situation demands and for reasons to be recorded, the Trial Court can permit further investigation but not re-investigation. She fairly submits that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relevant to the instant case. She also submits that if the source of power does not exist, the learned Trial Court cannot direct re-investigation of the case. In this connection, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relies upon the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398. [4.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival Page No.# 4/6 parties and I have perused the materials available on record. As already stated, vide the impugned Order dated 06.09.2023, the learned Trial Court has ordered re- investigation of the ACB No. 9/2023 by giving its own finding about the non- acceptability of the report submitted by the Investigating Agency. In ordering re- investigation, reliance has been placed on the case of Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. (supra) besides the case of State through CBI Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr. Etc. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would go to show that according to the Apex Court, even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate concerned and is accepted, it is permissible for the Investigating Agency to carry out further investigation in the case. However, what we are concerned in the present case is with regard to “re-investigation” which is not similar under any circumstance with that of “further investigation”. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi (surpa) formulated the following two (2) questions for consideration and decision:- (1) Whether in exercise of its powers under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where there are two reports by the same or different investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court? If so, to what effect? (2) Whether the CBI is empowered to conduct ‘fresh’/’re- investigation’ when the cognizance has already been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on Page No.# 5/6 the basis of a police report under Section 173 of the Code? [5.] Answering the first question, the Apex Court held that the court of competent jurisdiction is duty bound to consider all reports, entire records and documents submitted therewith by the Investigating Agency as its report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC. This Rule is subject to only the following exceptions; a) Where a specific order has been passed by the learned Magistrate at the request of the prosecution limited to exclude any document or statement or any part thereof; b) Where an order is passed by the higher courts in exercise of its extra- ordinary or inherent jurisdiction directing that any of the reports i.e. primary report, supplementary report or the report submitted on ‘fresh investigation’ or ‘re- investigation’ or any part of it be excluded, struck off the court record and be treated as non-est. [6.] In respect of the second question, the Apex Court held that no investigating agency is empowered to conduct a ‘fresh’, ‘de novo’ or ‘re-investigation’ in relation to the offence for which it has already filed a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC. It is only upon the orders of the higher courts empowered to pass such orders that fresh/re- investigation can be conducted, in which event the higher courts will have to pass a specific order with regard to the fate of the investigation already conducted and the report so filed before the court of the learned Page No.# 6/6 magistrate. [7.] From the above, it is clear that the power to direct ‘re-investigation’ or ‘de novo investigation’ is only conferred upon the superior courts/constitutional courts and not to court of Magistrates or the Trial courts. Therefore, in absence of any power conferred by any provisions of law, the impugned Order dated 06.09.2023 directing re-investigation of the case by the learned Trial Court is found to be not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to consider the case from the stage of considering the final report as submitted by the ACB in ACB Case No. 9/2023 dated 12.09.2022 in accordance with law and in terms of the observation made herein above. [8.] With the above observation and direction, the revision petition stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant