Dr. Akoijam Jhalajit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

[1] This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 14.2.2017 passed

in Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.25 of 2017, whereby learned Sessions judge, Imphal West directed further investigation of RC 1 (S)

2010 IMPH and RC 2(S)2010 IMPH.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that on 23.7.2009 an encounter took place at B.T. Road, Imphal in which two persons namely Thokchom

Rabina and Chungkham Sanjit Singh were killed and police registered First Information Reports being FIR NO.75(7) 2009 on the file of

City PS and FIR NO.82(8) 2009 on the file of City PS under Section 302/34 IPC and section 27(3) Arms Act. Later on, on petition filed by

the mother of Chungkham Sanjit Singh, the Gauwahi High Court, Imphal Bench transferred the investigation to CBI and the CBI registered

the case as RC 1(S)2010 IMPH and after investigation, the CBI filed the charge sheet against nine accused.

[3] According to the petitioner, at the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Additional Superintendent of police, Imphal West and he

has been cited as prosecution witness and the petitioner has fully co-operated with the CBI in the investigation and in the charge sheet filed

by the CBI, the petitioner was one of the witness among 254 witnesses to be examined as prosecution witnesses. Now the trial is pending

before the learned Sessions judge, Imphal West, where almost 90 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

[4] On 27.1.2016, the third accused namely Th. Herojit Singh made a statement to the local daily that he killed Chungkham Sanjit Singh as

per the order of the then Additional Superintendent of police, the petitioner herein. Immediately, the mother of the deceased Chungkham

Sanjit Singh filed representation to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Imphal Branch for further investigation. Since the CBI has not

considered the representation, the mother of the deceased Chungkham Sanjit Singh filed W.P.NO.6 of 2016 before this court for a direction

to CBI to make further investigation. By an order dated 26.2.2016, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

[5] Thereafter, the third accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.20 of 2016 before the learned Sessions judge, Imphal West for

allowing him to make full true disclosure in connection to the killing of Chungkham Sanjit Singh in a fake encounter on 23.7.2009 and by

an order dated 30.3.2016, the said petition was dismissed by the said Court. The mother of Chungkham Sanjit Singh has also filed Criminal

Miscellaneous Case NO.25 of 2016 before the learned sessions judge in Sessions Trial Case NO.7/2010/57/2015 for further investigation

into the case and by an order dated 30.3.2016, the said petition was also dismissed.

[6] According to the petitioner, after almost a year of the dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.25 of 2016, the CBI filed

application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking direction to make a further investigation in the case under trial. By an order date

14.2.2017, the learned Sessions Judge granted liberty to the CBI to proceed for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

[7] MR.S. Prabakaran the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of further investigation has arisen only after the

third accused gave a statement in the media saying that he had committed the crime as per the instruction of the petitioner was officiating as

Additional Superintendent of police, Imphal West. He would submit that the said statement made by the third accused was without any

supporting or collaborating evidence and it was just a mere statement.

[8] The learned senior counsel further submitted that mere statement of an accused is not enough to book another person as a co- accused

without any supporting evidence to support the same. Even for the purpose of further investigation, there should be new evidence and as

per the Indian Evidence Act, affidavit sworn before an Oath Commissioner cannot be taken as evidence.

[9] The learned senior counsel would submit that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by the third accused to allow him to

record his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge regarding his confessional statement of committing the

crime at the instance of the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel, when the mother of the deceased filed an application before

the learned Sessions Judge to direct the CBI for further investigation relying on the statement given by the third accused, the same was

opposed by the CBI stating that mere statement of the third accused cannot be considered as evidence and there is no new evidence which

may compel the CBI for further investigation before completing the trial of the case. Taking note of the submissions of the CBI, the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by the mother of the deceased.

[10] The learned senior counsel next submitted that by allowing the application of the CBI which only intimates the learned Sessions Judge

that CBI has started further investigation by relying on the said statement of the third accused will amounts to reviewing the earlier decision

rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in the same matter.

[11] The learned senior counsel then submitted that the conduct of the CBI dealing with the petitioner clearly shows that CBI wanted to

implicate him in the present case and the petitioner has not only been summoned for recording his statement but to harass him by tainting his

image. Since the CBI has investigated the matter thoroughly by collecting all evidences before filing the charge sheet and the charge sheet

has been filed against nearly eight police personnel, the act of the CBI trying to implicate the petitioner is nothing but to harass with a

vindictive agenda to tarnish the image of the petitioner. Therefore, no further investigation by the CBI is necessary and prayed for setting

aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 14.2.2017 impugned in this petition. In support of his submissions, the learned senior

counsel relied on the following decisions:

(1) Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam V. State of Bihar, 1964 SCR (6) 623.

(2) State of AP V. AS Peter, (2008) 2 SCC 383.

(3) Ashish Dixit and others V. State of UP and another, (2013) 4 SCC 176.

(4) Vinay Tyagi V. Trshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762.

(5) Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited V. Shreeji Cab Company and others, (2014) 13 SCC 619.

(6) Dhariwal Industries Limited V. Kishore Wadhwani, (2016) 10 SCC 378.

[12] Per contra, Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. PCCG, the learned counsel for the respondent CBI submitted that the present petition is

premature, devoid of merits and in fact the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a view to evade the process of fair and

impartial further investigation which is being carried out on the basic of fresh and new additional facts disclosed by the mother of the

deceased Chungkham Sanjit. He would submit that keeping in view of the seriousness of the case and the new facts discovered, the further

investigation is necessary and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. He would

further submit that the investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation and it is neither fresh investigation nor re-investigation.

The petition filed by the CBI before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.2.2017 is in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and also as per the

procedure prescribed.

 [13] The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the permission granted by the learned Sessions Judge dated 14.2.2017,

efforts were made by the CBI to examine the petitioner and after due insistence, the petitioner appeared before the CBI for examination, but

he did not cooperate on one pretext or other and found to be evasive on certain question put to him. Therefore, a fresh notice under Section

160 Cr.P.C. dated 15.2.2017 was served on the petitioner with a direction to appear for formal examination, however, the petitioner has not

appeared and filed anticipatory bail application and the same was dismissed. He would submit that the petitioner is deliberately raising

doubts about the motive of the CBI just with a view to cover up his own undesirable non- cooperative conduct.

[14] The learned counsel then submitted that the acts and behavior of the petitioner evading from giving his statement to the investigating

officer of the case become suspicious and the petitioner by filing various criminal petitions in the court, he has been trying to evade from

cooperating in the further investigation of the case, thereby he is acting like an accused. If such responsible police officer fails to

cooperate with the present case, how the principle of the criminal law can be achieved and enforced to bring out the true culprit of the

offence in a speedy manner. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the CBI prays to allow the investigating agency of the CBI to take the

statement of the petitioner and thus, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

[15] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

[16] The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge impugned in this petition on the following grounds:

* Albeit under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the investigating office has enough power to make further investigation in a situation where new

evidence/materials are discovered after submitting the charge sheet, but not to misuse it for malafide design.

* When CBI has opposed in tooth and nail, the application of the accused namely Thounaojam Herojit Singh for allowing him to make full

true disclosure in connection to the killing of Chungkham Sanjit Meitei and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.3.2016 then

what are the new evidences gathered by the CBI within a period of one year to make further investigation in the present case were not

stated.

* The most question required for consideration is, what is the value of a statement given by an accused to media. As a matter of fact it is

inadmissible in the Evidence Act and even if his statement is recorded by the CBI after seven years of submitting the charge sheet before the

Magistrate, the question which arises for consideration is what is the value of a confessional statement given by the accused to the police. It

is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and when a confessional statement of an accused is inadmissible against

himself, how can it be admissible against the other person.

* Even if the third accused Thounaojam Herajit Singh wants to make a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that cannot be recorded now

because statement under Section 164. Cr.P.C. can be recorded during the investigation whereas the present case is under trial where almost

105 witness have already been examined so far.

* Even if the confessional statement of the third accused is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be read against a person who is

not facing a joint trial.

[17] On the other hand, it is the say of the CBI that it is prerogative of the investigating agency to continue further investigation, if new

facts happened to be developed either orally or documentary. According to the CBI, it is very much clear from the plea raised by the mother

of the deceased that Chungkham Sanjit was killed owning to the criminal intents of the charge sheeted accused. As such, by the order

impugned, the application of the CBI was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no infirmity in it.

[18] Placing reliance upon the decisions of the honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Vinay Tyagi V. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and

Reeta Nag V. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 13 SCR 276, MR. Darakishwor the learned counsel for the CBI submitted that Section

173(8) of the Cr.P.C. clearly granted right to the investigation agency to continue the further investigation and in the instant case, the

petitioner is still not an accused and he was only called by the CBI for examination in connection with the development of new facts during

the course of the trial of the present case. As such the behavior of the petitioner evading from giving his statement to the investigating

officer of the case become suspicious.

[19] It is settled law that notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under

Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as

necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their

regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation.

[20] From the plain reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C., It is evident that after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion

of investigation, the police has a right of further investigation under sub-section (8), but not investigation or re-investigation.

 [21] In the instant case, earlier the mother of the deceased filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge to direct the CBI for

further investigation relying on the very statement given by the third accused which is now relied on by the CBI. The said application was

opposed by the CBI by saying that mere statement of the third accused cannot be considered as evidence and there is no new evidence

which may compel the CBI for further investigation before completing the trial of the case. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel

for the CBI, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the mother of the deceased.

[22] On a perusal of the order dated 30.3.2016, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge recorded the submissions of the learned counsel

for the CBI in paragraph 4 as under:

“Ld. Counsel of CBI, Shri P.Ibomcha Singh, per con, has contended that under section 173 Cr.P.C. the CBI has ample power to further

investigation a case if new facts are arises even after commencement of trial but at present, the CBI is not in a position to initiate any step to

the question as to whether a further investigation into the case is necessary or not, as any step taken up by CBI will cause prejudice since

the present petitioner filed writ petition before the honorable High Court as well as before this Court Shri. P.Ibomcha Singh, Id. Counsel of

CBI, has further maintained that the alleged disclosure of the accused Herojit Singh to the print and electronic media as well as on an

affidavit sworn before an Oath Commissioner cannot be taken as evidence in any manner in the case as per Indian Evidence Act and in

such situation, this court cannot consider the alleged disclosure of the accused Herojit Singh and further, this trial court has also no power

under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. to direct further investigation to the investigating agency after the commencement of trial unless the

investigating agency requested to do so, nevertheless, the CBI is ready to obey whatever direction made by the Court.â€​

[23] Finally, after considering the submissions raised by the respective counsel and also the case laws cited by the parties, the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the mother of the deceased. The operative portion of the order read thus:

“25. In the result of the foregoing observations, I safely come to the conclusion that a Magistrate or a trial Court, after the

commencement of trial, had no jurisdiction or power to direct ‘further investigation’ suo-motu or at the behest of the informant or

victim or any aggrieved person to the investigating agency but has power to direct further investigation’ if the investigating agency

move the Court as per the ratios laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in catena of cases. Furthermore, the hand of this court is

completely tide even though I do feel that there is some development or change circumstance in the factual position of the case, which may

need ‘further investigation’ since this court has to follow only the provisions envisage in the code of Criminal procedure, 1973 and

having neither inherent nor constitutional power. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is settled principle of law as per the ratio laid

down by the Honorable Supreme Court in catena of cases that under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., if the trial court appears from the evidence in

the course of any inquiry into or trial of that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be

tried together with the other accused, may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. I, therefore,

examine all the evidences given by the 75 witness so far examined before the court, but none of witness whisper relating to the alleged

disclosure made by the accused, Th. Herojit Singh and thus, This court up to this stage of investigation is not in a position to exercise the

power envisages under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Situated thus, the application filed by the mother of the deceased, Ch. Sanjit Singh for

directing the CBI to ‘further investigation’ under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.â€​

[24] The plea of the petitioner is that relying on the very same statement of the third accused, now the CBI wants to further investigate the

case, which is impermissible in law and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take note of it.

[25] It appears that earlier the third accused also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.20 of 2016 for allowing him to full and true

disclosure in connection to the killing of Chungkham Sanjit Meitei in a fake encounter on 23.7.2009. By an order dated 30.3.2016, the

learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the said application by observation by observing as under:

“11. On having synthetic perusal the procedures for trial before a Court of Session mentioned in section 225 to 235 above, it is crystal

clear that after the commencement of trial the right of accused to speak before the Court is at the stage of his examination after completion

of evidence of prosecution witness mentioned in S.232 and the said examination shall be in accordance with the provisions mentioned in

S.313 Cr.P.C. In other words, till the examination of the accused after the completion of evidence of prosecution witness, the accused is not

allowed to speak or put any written statement. The stage of the trial is examination of prosecution witness and thus, the accused, Th. Herojit

Singh has to wait till his turn for examination of himself comes which shall be after the completion of prosecution witnesses.

The case laws cited by the Id. Counsel, Shri Ibochouba Singh are related with the further investigation and thus, not related with the present

application. Before the hearing of this application, the accused, Th. Herojit Singh has requested before the court to say something and he

was permitted by this court and in that accused, Th. Herojit Singh has stated before the court that he just wanted to disclose the true facts of

the case and he do not want further investigation and thus, the desire of the accused, Th. Herojit Singh is contrary to the submissions made

by his counsel. Nevertheless, the case laws cited by him, will be considered in connection with the application filed by the mother of the

deceased Ch. Sanjit Meitei for further investigation, which is also heard by this court. Furthermore, as regards the submission of Shri

Khaidem Mani Singh, Sr. Advocate for directing the Id. CJM/IW to record the statement of the accused, Th. Herojit Singh under section 164

Cr.P.C., it is settled principle of law that recording of confessional statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. shall be made during the period of

investigation only and it cannot be done after the commencement of trial.

In the result of the foregoing observations, this court is not in a position to allow the accused, Th. Herojit Singh to make any disclosure

whatever he wants at this stage of trial. He has to wait till his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C.â€​

[26] The perusal of the aforesaid two orders of the learned Sessions Judge clearly show that none of the witnesses stated about the alleged

disclosure made by the third accused and any confessional statement of the third accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after commencement of

trial cannot be taken into account. Admittedly, both the orders have not been appealed by the aggrieved parties, Including the CBI.

[27] Thus, it is clear that the very same investigating agency who opposed the application of the mother of the deceased by making a

statement that though CBI has no ample power to further investigate a case if new facts are arisen even after the commencement of trial but

at present, CBI is not in a position to initiate any step to the question as to whether a further investigation into the case is necessary or not,

as any step taken by CBI will cause prejudice. But the very same investigating agency after almost a period of one year is trying to start

further investigation in the given case without disclosing to the trial court what are all the new facts or evidence discovered by the CBI

during this period of one year.

[28] In fact, in the application of the CBI seeking further investigation, it has been stated as under:

“1.That a Case NO. RCI(S)2010-IMPH was registered in CBI. Imphal Branch on 16.01.2010 u/s 302, 34 IPC & 27(3) Arms Act, 1959 as

per orders date 23.12.2009 of honorable Guwahati High Court, Imphal bench passed in WP (Crl) NO.77/2009 filed by Smt. Taratombi Devi

transferring the investigation of FIR NO.82(8)/2009 of City PS, imphal (W). In this FIR, it was alleged that on 23.07.2009, commandos of

Manipur police apprehended Chungkham Sanjit Meitei and kill him arbitrarily at Maimum Pharmacy located at B.T. Road, Imphal.

That thereafter, a case NO.2(S)/2010 IMPH was registered in CBI, Imphal Branch on 05.02.2010 u/s 302, 326, 307, 506 IPC section

17/20 of UA(P) Act & Section 25(1-B) of Arm Act on the request of Govt. of Manipur transferring FIR No.75(7)/2009, City Police Station.

In this FIR, it was alleged that on 23.07.2009 while conducting frisking, a youth whipped out a small arm and fired towards the police party

and he was shot dead at maimu Pharmacy, near Gambhir Singh Shopping Arcade in a retaliatory firing.

That after completion of the investigation, a single charge-sheet for commission of offences u/s 34, 218, 203, 302 IPC in the said two

cases was filed by CBI on 09.09.2010 in the Count of CLM, Imphl against following 9 accused persons:

(i) Yumnam Munal Singh, Inspector, the then OC, City PS, Imphal West.

(ii) Hijam Devendra Singh, the then Inspector of Police, Commando, Bazar, Unit, Imphal West.

(iii) Thounaojam Herojit Singh, Head Constable, COD, Imphal West.

(iv) Ngangom Toyaima Singh, Rifleman, 8th BN, Manipur Rifles.

(v) Wahengbam Bijoy Singh, Constable, COD, Imphal West.

(vi) Thokchom Jagat Singh, Havaldar, 8th BN, Manipur Rifles.

(vii) Md. Imran Khan, Rifleman, 5th IRB.

(viii) Oinam Keshor Singh, Head Cinstable, COD, Imphal West.

(ix) Makan Kanchung Chote, Constable, COD, Imphal West.

That the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence before this Honorable Court and more than 86 Pws have been examined so far, out

of 254 cited witnesses.

That in the light of additional information received and additional facts disclosed by Smt. Chungkham Taratombi Devi, mother of

deceased, it has, now, been decided by CBI to conduct further investigation in this case.

PRAYER

In view of the additional facts and circumstance discussed above, it is most humbly prayed that this intimation regarding further

investigation by CBI in terms of the provisions of section 173(8) Cr.P.C may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice.â€​

[29] As stated supra, admittedly, no new facts or evidence was discovered by the CBI so as to make further investigation in this matter. In

their application, the CBI stated that in the light of the additional information received and additional facts disclosed by Smt. Chungkham

Taratombi Devi, mother of deceased, it has, now, been decided by CBI to conduct further investigation in this case. The additional

information alleged to be discovered by the CBI is of the confession made by the third accused during trial, but nothing more. While

contesting the application filed by the mother of the deceased, the CBI opposed her plea that as per the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court

has no power to considered the alleged disclosure of the third accused and the trial Court has no power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to

direct further investigation to the investigating agency after the commencement of trial unless the investigating agency requested to do so.

When such is the plea taken by the CBI in the earlier point of time, they cannot at a later point of time that too by relying upon the same

statement of the third accused say further investigation is required to be done in the instant case. Though the CBI now requested the trial

Court to further investigate in this case, they have not given any new additional information and additional facts discovered by them for

further investigation into this matter.

[30] As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the CBI has investigated the matter thoroughly by

collecting all evidence before filing the charge sheet and the charge sheet has been filed against nearly eight or nine police personnel, the

act of the CBI trying to implicate the petitioner is nothing but to harass with a vindictive agenda to tarnish the image of the petitioner.

[31] The learned Sessions Judge, simply allowed the CBI to proceed further investigation without disclosing the new discoveries and the

subsequent development warrants further investigation into this matter. For better appreciation the order impugned dated 14.2.2017 is

extracted here under:

“This is an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. filed by the above named applicant praying for allowing to initiate further

investigation of the above referred RC NO.1 and 2(S) 2010 IMPH. Register it as Cril Misc Case.

I have perused the application as well as the case record. The case is now at the stage of prosecution witness and so far, 90 PWs were

examined by the prosecution.

As per the ratio, laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court, the Court has power to direct Further Investigation, if the investigating

agency move the court.

Hence the prayer for initiation of further investigation of the above referred RCs is allowed.

The applicant, Vijay Kumar Shukla, Addi SP CBI is liberty to proceed further investigation under section 173(8) of CrPC of the above

referred case.

Send a copy of this order to HOB, CBI ACB Imphal for information Announced.â€​

[32] As stated supra, in the impugned order, there is no discussion qua the additional information and additional facts discovered and/or

received by the CBI. The only information received by the CBI is the statement made by the third accused. There is no record produced on

record to show the additional facts disclosed by the mother of the deceased.

[33] It is to be noted that by allowing the application of the CBI which only intimates the learned Sessions Judge that CBI has stared further

investigation by only relying on the said statement of the third accused will amounts to reviewing the earlier decision rendered by the

learned Sessions Judge. Further, as stated supra, the respondent in the earlier application never challenged the earlier order of the learned

Sessions Judge Sessions Judge before the higher forum.

[34] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CBI never filed any application under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

praying for permission for further investigation from the Sessions Court and all that the CBI has done was just to intimate the Sessions

Court that the CBI has started further investigation. Hence, the affected parties were not given any opportunity of being heard before

proceeding with the further investigation.

[35] Countering the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the CBI submitted that further investigation

has been proceeded relying on the earlier statement of the third accused, which was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge.

[36] In reply, MR.S.Prabhakaran the learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that even though Cr.P.C. has given the power to the

investigating agency for further investigation, in the present case, the most important ingredient of further investigation i.e., new evidence

which was never recorded during the earlier investigation is completely ignored in the present case. This Court finds some force in the

submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

Further, the approach adopted by the CBI is contrary to the criminal jurisprudence.

[37] At the cost of repetition, it is recorded that after the dismissal of the application for further investigation filed by the mother of the

deceased, the CBI remained silent for nearly a year by being satisfied by the order of the learned Sessions Judge and the trial of the case

was proceeded further and almost 105 witness were examined on the side of the prosecution.

[38] At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of CBI trying to revive the process of further

investigation after a gap of nearly a year of the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the mother of the deceased and immediately

after the change of guard in the political scenario in the State is an attempt to politicalize the matter by ignoring the earlier decision

rendered by the learned Sessions Judge so as to make political advantages out of the case.

[39] It is pertinent to note that pending Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.6 of 2017, the mother of the deceased filed Criminal

Miscellaneous Case NO.6 of 2018 seeking to implead her as respondent NO.2 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.6 of 2017. By an order

dated 26.4.2019, the learned Sessions judge, dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.6 of 2018. While dismissing Criminal

Miscellaneous case NO.6 of 2018, the learned Sessions Judge, observed as under:

“It appears that earlier the petitioner has approached the Court with a prayer for further investigation in S.T.NO.7 of 2010/57 of 2015

and the same were disposed of by the Court. As against the order passed therein, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal and the issue

attained finality as far as the petitioner’s case is concerned. It also appears that neither the second respondent nor the petitioner

established any new evidence or corroborated material particulars after the commencement of the trial for any further investigation.â€​

[40] Pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.02.2017, the CBI issued notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner calling upon him

to appear before the Imphal office on 15.2.2017. The petitioner has also appeared before the investigating officer of the CBI on 15.2.2017

and after due enquiry, the petitioner was issued with another notice calling upon him to appear on 17.2.2017. Unfortunately, due to his ill-

health, the petitioner could not appear before the CBI and also apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail petition and

the same was dismissed by the trial Court. The dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition is in no way go against the petitioner in considering

his prayer now made in the instant petition.

[41] It is apposite to mention that investigation by the CBI in the instant case after examination of nearly 105 witnesses is unwarranted.

Moreover, the additional information and additional facts alleged by the CBI for further investigation is irrelevant to the trial of the case,

as when the said additional information i.e., the statement of the third accused relied on by the mother of the deceased and for further

investigation was negative by the learned Sessions Judge and against which no appeal was filed and the mother of the deceased and the

CBI both allowed the matter to attain finality. In such circumstances, based on the alleged statement of the third accused, the CBI now

cannot ask for further investigation. If further investigation is permitted in this case, definitely, it will alter the original version of the

prosecution, as nearly 105 witnesses were examined, which is inclusive of the petitioner as P.W.54. Since the occurrence is of the year 2009

and till date, the Sessions Case has not seen the light of the day, it is inappropriate to order further investigation in this case. That apart,

the statement of the third accused is of the year 2016, almost 5 and half years after the occurrence.

 [42] Assuming that there is additional information gathered by the CBI pending trial, the CBI cannot now seek for further investigation. If

such practice is allowed, the trial of the case will be delayed. It is reiterated that only in order to protract the trial proceedings, the CBI has

filed the petition for further investigation and the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the material fact, allowed the petition filed by

the CBI. In fact, the CBI has no right to seek for further investigation based on the mere statement of the third accused which statement was

earlier opposed by the CBI. It is also the plea of the CBI in Criminal Miscellaneous Case NO.6 of 2018 that no prejudice is likely to be

caused to any party by the ongoing trial.

[43] On a thorough analysis of the materials available on record, it is seen that the CBI is subjecting the petitioner to unnecessarily asking

him to come to Delhi CBI office when everything could be done at Imphal. In fact, the CBI examined the petitioner twice on 14.2.2017 and

15.2.2017at its Imphal office. While so, the motive of the CBI asking the petitioner to come to Delhi is not bonafide nor in the interest of

justice. Since the petitioner was examined as P.W. 54 on the prosecution side, there is no necessity for the CBI to summon the petitioner for

examination based on the alleged statement of the third accused. Any statement recorded by way of further investigation after the trial

commenced would definitely hit the evidence already recorded. From the above discussion, this Court is of the view that no further

investigation is necessary in this case, as best part of investigation has already been done by the CBI and based on which charge sheet was

filed and witnesses have been examined by the CBI.

[44] In the result,

(a) The criminal petition is allowed;

(b) The order dated 14.2.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal west in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.25 of 2017 is set

aside.

(c) The learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West is directed to proceed with the trial and decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

(d) It is made clear that this Court has not dwelled into the merits of the prosecution case in this order.