Chennai: The Madras high court has held that the power of the Magistrate to permit the police to further investigate the case is an independent power and the exercise of the said power shall not amount to varying, modifying, or cancelling the earlier of the Magistrate on the report of the police.
The Full bench comprising Justices S.Nagamuthu, P.N.Prakash and N.Authinathan gave the ruling while answering a question of law as to whether the Magistrate has power to permit the police to further investigate the case, after the acceptance of the final report filed earlier by the police stating that the crime could not be detected.
The question of law arose during the course of arguments on an appeal filed by Chinnathambi alias Subramani against an order of the lower court convicting and sentencing him to life sentence in a murder and theft case.
According to prosecution, Chinnathambi along with two other accused murdered the watchman of a temple and broke open the locks and stolen the Gold and Silver ornaments belonging to the temple in Mettupalayam in 2005.
Initially, the police had no clue and filed a report stating that the crime was undetected. The magistrate recorded the same and closed the case. Subsequently, in 2011, the police had some clue about the culprits involved in the crime while they were in Coimbatore prison in connection with some other case.
Therefore, on an application from police, the Magistrate granted permission for further investigation and the case ended in conviction by a sessions court in Tirupur.
His counsel argued that since earlier the Magistrate had accepted the final report filed by the police reporting that the crime could not be detected, the Magistrate had no power to grant permission for further investigation of the case and thus, the order of the Magistrate and the ultimate conviction by the trial court stand vitiated.
After analysing the issues in detail and citing various judgments of the Supreme Court, the Full bench held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of offences on a police report was a judicial order.
An order of a Magistrate ordering further investigation on receiving a police report was a non-judicial order. An order of a Magistrate accepting a negative police report after hearing the parties was a judicial order.
An order of a Magistrate recording the report of the police as “undetectable” was not a judicial order, the Full bench added.
Pointing out that there were no materials or evidences to prove the case, which was based on circumstantial evidences and the trial court has convicted the accused Chinnathambi only based on mere surmise, the bench acquitted him from all the charges.
