Sridhar vs State by Subramanyapura Police Station, Bangalore

In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the petitioner, who is accused 1 in S.C. No. 203 of 1993 on the file of the Fast Track Court No. I at Bangalore City, requests to quash the additional charge-sheet filed on 2-11-1996 and a direction to the Court not to consider the materials included by way of additional charge-sheet and to return the same to the concerned officer for further needful. After notice to the respondent-State, heard both sides and perused the records.

Admittedly, additional charge-sheet with further statements of some of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency, a panchanama with PF and two FSL reports only, were filed on 2-11-1996.

So, it was vehemently argued for the petitioner-accused that filing of additional charge-sheet in the Sessions Court-Fast Track Court was not proper and placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1791 and a decision of this Court in the case of G.E. Narayana v State of Karnataka, ILR 1979 Kar. 2536, which have been relied on by Orissa High Court in the case of Arjuna Kumar Pujhari v State of Orissa, 1989 Cri. L.J. 449 (Ori.) in support of his contention that the papers are required to be returned to the Investigating Officer to present before the learned Magistrate so that they could be forwarded to the Fast Track Court (Sessions Court) by that Magistrate in accordance with law and consequently, sought necessary directions as prayed for in the petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that though it was styled as ''Additional charge-sheet'', except filing further statements of some witnesses and a panchanama with PF besides two FSL reports, nothing more was done and as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-accused and consequently, it is not a case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

Admittedly, before filing additional charge-sheet, permission from the concerned Magistrate or Sessions Court had not been obtained. But, no such prior permission is contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. Further, having regard to the material filed with additional charge-sheet, the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner-accused. Even there is no specific prohibition contained in Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. to hold that additional documents cannot be produced subsequent to the filing of charge-sheet. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v R.S. Pai and Another, AIR 2002 SC 1644, relied on for the State, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the prosecution can produce additional documents gathered during investigation made prior to or subsequent to the charge-sheet (filed after investigation) and observed as under:

"If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to investigation. In such cases, there cannot be any prejudice to the accused". In view of the said recent decision of the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to consider the decisions relied on for the petitioner, more so, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

That apart, the petitioner-accused has approached this Court after about 71/2 years of filing additional charge-sheet. It is not that additional charge-sheet was filed behind his back or that copies of the same were not furnished when filed before the Court. Why the petitioner kept silent for all these years is not explained. He has approached this Court after examination of eight witnesses. Even prejudice, if any, caused to him is neither explained nor stated before this Court. So, considered from any angle, it is not a case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

Consequently, the petition is rejected.