Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat And Ors
| Case name : Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat And Ors |
| Equivalent citations : AIR 2004 SC 2078 |
| Date of judgement : 5 April, 2004 |
| Case no : Appeal (crl.) 421 of 2004 |
| Case type : Criminal appeal |
| Petitioner : Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi |
| Respondent :State of Gujarat and Ors. |
| Bench : Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat |
| Statutes referred : Criminal Procedure code, Indian penal code |
Facts of the case
In 2003, persons belonging to a particular community, attacked the shops of persons belonging to other communities and looted their articles. The appellant in this case filed an FIR in the police station. They were charged with offences including sections 395 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. But after some time, the section 395 and section 120B charged against the accused were deleted. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for further investigation by an independent agency. But, the High Court rejected the petition stating that there were other remedies available before the appellant than filing for a writ petition. So, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said judgement.
Issue of the case
Whether further investigation should be conducted in the case of defective investigation?
Arguments raised by the appellant and the respondent
- The counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecuting agency had failed to do their duty which was to bring the accused persons before the court for appropriate offenses. From the beginning of the investigation itself the investigating agency acted in favour of the accused persons. The deletion of section 395 and section 120B of IPC which were charged against the accused shows that they are biased towards the accused. In these circumstances they are not expected to act in a fair manner while moving to the trial court
- The counsel for the respondent supported the High Court judgement. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court.
Judgment
The Court disposed of the appeal without expressing any final opinion on the merit of the case. It was held that if further investigation is necessary for arriving at the truth it should be conducted. Delay of the trial should not be the reason for not conducting further investigation. And in the issue regarding the deletion of sections, the court stated that the trial court has the power to add or alter any charges against the accused before rendering the judgement.
Reason
The court had directed the Director General of Police to submit a report on the matter of defective investigation and the need for further investigation. The report described that there were defects on the part of the investigation agency especially regarding this deletion of sections charged against the accused. But a further investigation would delay the completion of trial.
The court regarding the issue of defective investigation stated that the trial court has the power to add or alter charges against the accused before rendering judgement and section 216 of CPRC ensures this power. As per section 173(8) of CRPC further investigation should be conducted when they receive fresh evidence against the accused. In this case there are certain defects in the investigation conducted by the agency. In Om Prakash Narang and Anr. V State (Delhi Admn.), the court held that in case of defective investigation, further investigation should be conducted. The delay in the completion of the trial should not be a reason for not conducting further investigation. If further investigation is necessary for arriving at the truth it should be conducted as per the law.
References
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1445805/
written by Poornima Rajasekaran a student of Government Law College, Thrissur, third semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
