Introduction

1.How was Section 173(8) added to CrPC of 1973?

The CrPC's Section 173(8) addresses additional research and reports for further investigation. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure adresess additional research and reports.This recent addition to the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was included in response to the Law Commission's 41st Report proposal that the police's authority to conduct additional investigations be statutorily upheld.The Law Commission acknowledged the aforementioned discrepancy and incongruity in the judicial decisions in its 41st Report , and it urged that the police's power to conduct additional inquiry be statutorily affirmed. As a result, Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 was created, granting the police the legal authority to conduct additional inquiry following the filing of the final report in accordance with Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. Notably, it still did not grant the Magistrate the authority to oversee further or new inquiries following the Investigating Office's final reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed.The provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, to the extent possible, apply to such report or reports in the same manner as they do to reports forwarded under sub-section (2).[1]

2.Scope of Section 173(8) of CrPC

• In the case,where the second respondent also the defacto complainant, was represented by his/her lawyers who argued that since he is a party affected by the charge sheet filed by the first respondent police, he may file a petition under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to request additional investigation.In Reeta Nag Vs west Bengal Ors the Supreme Court declared unequivocally that the Judicial Magistrate under Section 173(8), the Magistrate lacks the authority to suo moto order a re-investigation or order additional investigation based on the petition that the de-facto complainant filed which will not apply in tha case of the de facto complainant's request for more investigation which grants the Magistrate the authority to direct additional investigation solely on the basis of the Police Office last report with all the evidence, following the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., either charges must be framed or, in the event that the accused is discharged, the Magistrate must document the reasons for the discharge.In a protest petition,Magistrate may recognize the offense based on a protest petition or, upon the prosecution's request, allow the police to conduct more investigation in accordance with Section 173(8) of the Code.Than the Magistrate will finally have the authority to direct additional investigation solely on the basis of the Police Office last report which conatins additional evidence, either oral or documentary..In the case Kempegowda v. Puttamma W/o State of Karnataka the de facto complainant (petitioner) submits a request for more information regarding the accused's whereabouts under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C as the application cannot be prevented even if judgementis laid down in the clase of the CrPC.[2]
• The judgement of Ramachandran Vs. R. Udhayakumar clearly says that the interpretation of Subsections (2) and (8) of Section 173 makes it clear that the police are entitled to "further" investigation under Subsection (8) of Section 173, but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation," even after submitting the police report under Subsection (2) upon conclusion of the investigation. "Further" can signify additional, more, or supplemental. Therefore, "further" investigation refers to the continuation of the previous investigation rather than a new one that is initiated from scratch with the goal of completely erasing the previous investigation.[3]This clarifies that "further investigation" is just a continuation of the earlier investigation, therefore it cannot be stated that the accused are being exposed to investigation twice when addressing the question of whether the principle of double jeopardy would apply to it.The investigation also cannot be treated on a same footing with prosecution and punishment in order to be covered by Article 20 Clause (2) of the Constitution
• Section 173(8) Cr.P.C does not allow any stranger to become a de facto complainant and to petition for further investigation in a lower court or S.H.O as they do not have the no locus standi tofileanapplication seeking further investigation of the case even if according the section The supreme court can give authority to lower courts to suo moto issue the order for further investigation like in Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Admn(1988) where the apex court orders th trial court to give authority to CBI to conduct the investigation again as the Delhi Ploice investigations were siad to be biased.[4]
• In the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of A.P (1999) The judgement of Supreme Court held that the police are free to carry out additional investigations even after the court took cognizance of any offense based on the initial police report submitted which states that
  further investigation can be ordered both during or after trials if the evidence was insufficient,biased,etc.,[5]

3.The judgement which reaffirmed that Courts are not obliged to hear Accused while considering plea for Further Investigation based on Section 173(8) of Cr. P. C?

In the judgement given by the bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah of Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of Gujarat Ors. (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that, in line with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court is not required to hear the accused while deliberating on a request for further investigation is made under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.The the appellant filed a Special Criminal Application seeking to be included as a respondent and requesting further inquiry against other individuals who are accussed and charge sheeted like him which was denied by both High Court and the Supreme Court as the Apex court upheld the desicion of the HIgh court saying that it is absolutely justified in rejecting the application submitted by the appellant to implead him as a party respondent in the Special Criminal Application.[6]The judicial funtion of the courts is to order the Police officers to conduct further investigation to collects the addditional evidence but not to hear the pleas of the Accused .The courts should not be burdened with contemplating and hearing the pleas of the accused unless the further investigation provides the evidence that the accused may be "not guilty" by aiding their plea.

Citations

1.DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SECTION 173(8) Cr.P.C, available at https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/D%20Nageswara%20Rao%2C%20Prl%20JCJ%20Manthani.pdf

(December 16,2023)

2.further investigation under 173(8),available at https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=%20173%288%29further%20investigation (December 16,2023)

3.Scope of 173(8),available at https://supremetoday.ai/search/173-8--scope-of ( December 16,2023)

4.Supra note 1

5.Supra note 1

6.SC: Courts are not Obligated to hear Accused while considering for further Investigation,available at https://www.reddyandreddy.org/sc-courts-are-not-obligated-to-hear-accused-while-considering-plea-for-further-investigation/ (December 16,2023)