Introduction:

In a significant ruling on January 22, the Supreme Court addressed the impermissibility of Judicial Magistrates taking cognizance of supplementary charge-sheets without containing fresh oral or documentary evidence. Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan reversed the findings of the High Court and Trial Court, asserting that a supplementary charge-sheet must present new evidence obtained during further investigation under Section 178(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case involves appellants seeking discharge, with the trial court allowing further investigation, resulting in a supplementary charge-sheet and additional charges. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny centered on the sufficiency of fresh evidence.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants argued for discharge, contesting the validity of charges based on a supplementary charge-sheet lacking new evidence. The prosecution, supported by the trial court’s order, emphasized the permissibility of charges framed under Sections 468, 471 of IPC, and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, relying on the supplementary charge-sheet.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that a supplementary charge-sheet without fresh evidence fails to meet the requirements of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The investigating officer should obtain new evidence, oral or documentary, and the court expressed dissatisfaction with the mechanical approach to further investigation. The reliance on the same lab report in both charge-sheets raised concerns about investigative rigor. The court concluded that the charges lacked a foundation of new evidence, criticizing the reliance on a private laboratory report without corroborative proof. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and the trial court’s direction for further investigation.