1 wp 532-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Criminal Writ Petition No. 532 of 2021

Shubham Satyaniwas Arjunwar and Another

Vs.

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station

Wathoda, Nagpur

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for the petitioners

Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondent

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J.

RESERVED ON: AUGUST 05, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON:AUGUST 10, 2021

The petitioners (original accused) are

aggrieved by an order dated 23/07/2021, passed by

the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur

(hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”),

whereby two applications for calling additional

witnesses have been allowed. The petitioners further

claim that the Sessions Court could not have allowed

the prosecution to file supplementary charge-sheets

on 24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, since the trial had

already begun and twelve witnesses already stood

examined.

2. In the present case, a First Information ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

2 wp 532-2021.odt

Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners

for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read

with Schedule 26 of the Drug Prices Control Order

2013, read with provisions of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940, as also the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was registered on

18/04/2021 and charge-sheet was filed on

03/05/2021. In the charge-sheet, it was claimed that

the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted for

offences under Sections 420, 188, 381 read with 34

of the IPC, as also Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii) of the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 3 and 7

of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The

petitioners were arrested and while the petitioner

No.2 was released on bail, the petitioner No.1

continues to be behind bars. The allegation against

the petitioners is that they were hoarding and

blackmarketing medicines and drugs required for

treatment of Covid-19 virus, in violation of relevant

Government Notifications and Orders, thereby

committing the said offences. Charge was framed

against the petitioners on 23/06/2021. Thereafter,

examination of the prosecution witnesses commenced

from 25/06/2021.

3. A supplementary charge-sheet was

submitted on 24/06/2021 and recording of evidence

of the prosecution witnesses continued. On

15/07/2021, another supplementary charge-sheet

was placed on the record, upon which the Sessions ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

3 wp 532-2021.odt

Court passed an order. By this time, nine prosecution

witnesses had been examined.

4. Thereafter, on 20/07/2021 and

23/07/2021, the Special Public Prosecutor filed two

applications for permission to examine additional

witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. By this time,

twelve prosecution witnesses were already examined.

In the said applications, the Special Public Prosecutor

stated that some documents could not be filed with

the original charge-sheet and they were placed on

record along with supplementary charge-sheets and

that in the light of the documents filed along with the

supplementary charge-sheets, additional witnesses

were required to be examined. On 23/07/2021, the

Sessions Court, by a common order, allowed both the

applications for examining additional witnesses

(Exhs.69 and 88), after hearing the Special Public

Prosecutor as well as the petitioners. Summons were

issued to the additional witnesses sought to be

examined.

5. At this stage, the petitioners filed the

present Writ Petition contending that supplementary

charge-sheets could not have been filed before the

Sessions Court under Section 173(8) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), for the reason that

charges were already framed and the trial had begun.

It was submitted that twelve witnesses were already

examined and that such supplementary charge-sheets ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

4 wp 532-2021.odt

with additional documents could not have been

placed on record after commencement of trial, as it

caused prejudice to the petitioners i.e. the original

accused. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai

Haribhai Malaviya and Others Vs. State of Gujarat

and Another (2019) 17 SCC 1. This Court issued

notice for final disposal in the Writ Petition on

29/07/2021.

6. The Writ Petition was taken up for final

disposal, wherein the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned A.P.P. were heard at

length.

7. Mr. S.V. Bhutada, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of

Gujarat (supra), once the trial had commenced upon

framing of charges and recording of evidence was

being undertaken, the Investigating Officer could not

have placed supplementary charge-sheets along with

additional documents on the record of the Sessions

Court. By referring to certified copies of applications

filed by the Investigating Officer before the Sessions

Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that such brief applications could not have

been entertained by the Sessions Court as the trial

had commenced. It was brought to the notice of this ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

5 wp 532-2021.odt

Court that insofar as the application for seeking to

place on record supplementary charge-sheet on

24/06/2021 was concerned, there was no order of

the Sessions Court granting any permission, while a

very short order was passed on the application dated

15/07/2021, whereby second supplementary charge-

sheet was sought to be placed on record. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this

procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer was

unknown to law. It was further submitted that the

applications at Exs.69 and 88 for permission to

examine additional witnesses, in the light of filing of

supplementary charge-sheets along with additional

documents, could also not have been entertained and

allowed by the Sessions Court, for the reason that the

two supplementary charge-sheets after

commencement of trial could not have been

permitted to be placed on record by the Sessions

Court. Attention was invited to relevant paragraphs

of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of

Gujarat (supra), in order to support the aforesaid

contentions. On this basis, it was submitted that the

Writ Petition deserved to be allowed, impugned order

dated 23/07/2021, passed on Exhs.69 and 88

deserved to be set aside and a direction was required

to be issued to the Sessions Court not to consider the

two supplementary charge-sheets placed on record

after commencement of trial. ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

6 wp 532-2021.odt

8. On the other hand, Ms. Shamsi Haider,

learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State submitted that supplementary charge-sheets

could be placed on record in terms of power available

to the Investigating Officer under Section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the whole purpose of

the trial was to ascertain the truth and the

supplementary charge-sheets along with additional

documents, as also prayer for examining additional

witnesses, were steps taken on behalf of the

prosecution, in order to assist the Sessions Court to

arrive at the truth of the matter. The learned APP

further submitted that the present case concerned

serious offences committed by the petitioners in the

backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioners

were alleged to have hoarded and sold vital

medicines, including remdesivir required in the

treatment of Covid-19, at very high prices in violation

of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as also the

Drug Prices Control Order, 2013 and the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, apart from committing

offences under the IPC. The learned APP invited

attention of this Court to the relevant dates in the

present case. It was pointed out that FIR was

registered on 18/04/2021, charge-sheet was

immediately filed on 03/05/2021 and charges were

framed on 23/06/2021. This was in the backdrop of

the serious offences alleged to have been committed

by the petitioners and specific orders passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu Criminal ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:12 :::

7 wp 532-2021.odt

Application No.01/2021. By inviting attention to

orders dated 29/04/2021 and 06/05/2021, passed

by the Division Bench of this Court in the said

proceedings, it was submitted that supplementary

charge-sheets along with vital additional documents

were required to be placed on record of the Sessions

Court and in that light the additional witnesses were

sought to be examined.

9. The learned APP placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases

of Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata

Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

1999 (5) SCC 740, Hasanbhai Valibhai Quereshi Vs.

State of Gujarat 2004 (5) SCC 347 and Rama

Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 346, as

also judgment of this Court in the case of Niwas

Keshav Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2016 ALL

MR (Cri) 3742. By relying upon the said judgments,

it was submitted that the supplementary charge-

sheets could certainly be filed in the facts and

circumstances of the present case and that, therefore,

the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.

10. Heard learned counsel for the rival

parties. The principal contention raised on behalf of

the petitioners is that the supplementary charge-

sheets placed on record along with the additional

documents on 24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, could

not have been permitted by the Sessions Court, for ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

8 wp 532-2021.odt

the reason that charges already stood framed on

23/06/2021 and trial had commenced, with

recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Reliance was specifically placed on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai

Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), to

contend that once the trial commences, power

available to the Investigating Officer under Section

173(8) of the Cr.P.C. could not be exercised and

consequently, the Sessions Court was not empowered

to permit the supplementary charge-sheets and

additional documents to be placed on record, in

pursuance of such defective exercise of power by the

Investigating Officer. It was also claimed that there

was no ground made out on behalf of the

Investigating Officer or the Prosecutor for placing

such supplementary charge-sheets along with

additional documents on record and consequently,

there was no question of permitting examination of

additional witnesses relevant to the documents

sought to be brought on record along with

supplementary charge-sheets.

11. Since specific reliance is placed on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat

(supra), it would be appropriate to refer to the

specific question that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered in the said judgment. It was recorded in

paragraph 10 of the said judgment as follows: ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

9 wp 532-2021.odt

“10. The question of law that

therefore arises in this case is whether,

after a charge-sheet is filed by the police,

the Magistrate has the power to order

further investigation, and if so, up to

what stage of a criminal proceeding.”

12. It was further specifically recorded in

paragraph 20 of the said judgment as follows:

“20. With the introduction of

Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, the police

department has been armed with the

power to further investigate an offence

even after a police report has been

forwarded to the Magistrate. Quite

obviously, this power continues until the

trial can be said to commence in a

criminal case. The vexed question

before us is as to whether the Magistrate

can order further investigation after a

police report has been forwarded to him

under Section 173?”

13. While considering the position of law in

the context of the said specific question framed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was observed in

paragraphs 42 and 43 as follows:

“42. There is no good reason

given by the Court in these decisions as

to why a Magistrate’s powers to order

further investigation would suddenly

cease upon process being issued, and an

accused appearing before the

Magistrate,while concomitantly, the

power of the police to further

investigate the offence continues right

till the stage the trial commences. Such

a view would not accord with the

earlier judgments of this Court, in

particular, Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P.,

(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 2 SCC 409 : ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

10 wp 532-2021.odt

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, Samaj

Parivartan Samudaya V. State of

Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407 : (2012)

3 SCC (Cri) 365, Vinay Tyagi V. Irshad

Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC

(Cri) 557 and Hardeep Singh V. State of

Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2

SCC (Cri) 86 having clearly held that a

criminal trial does not begin after

cognizance is taken, but only after

charges are framed. What is not given

any importance at all in the recent

judgments of this Court is Article 21 of

the Constitution and the fact that the

Article demands no less than a fair and

just investigation. To say that a fair and

just investigation would lead to the

conclusions that the police retain the

power, subject, of course, to the

Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8)

to further investigate an offence till

charges are framed, but that the

supervisory jurisdiction of the

Magistrate suddenly ceases midway

through the pre-trial proceedings,

would amount to a travesty of justice,

as certain cases may cry out for further

investigation so that an innocent person

is not wrongly arraigned as an accused

or that a prima facie guilty person is not

so left out. There is no warrant for such

a narrow and restrictive view of the

powers of the Magistrate, particularly

when such powers are traceable to

Section 156(3) read with Section

156(1), Section 2(h) and Section

173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed

hereinabove, and would be available at

all stages of the progress of a criminal

case before the trial actually

commences. It would also be in the

interest of justice that this power be

exercised suo motu by the Magistrate

himself, depending on the facts of each

case. Whether further investigation ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

11 wp 532-2021.odt

should or should not be ordered is

within the discretion of the learned

Magistrate who will exercise such

discretion on the facts of each case and

in accordance with law. If, for example,

fresh facts come to light which would

lead to inculpating or exculpating

certain person, arriving at the truth and

doing substantial justice in a criminal

case are more important than avoiding

further delay being caused in

concluding the criminal proceeding, as

was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai

Quereshi V. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5

SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603.

Therefore, to the extent that the

judgments in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai

Patel V. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel

(2017) 4 SCC 177 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri)

331, Athul Rao V. State of Karnataka,

(2018) 14 SCC 298 : (2019) 1 SCC

(Cri) 594 and Bikash Ranjan Rout V.

State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542

: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 613 have held to

the contrary, they stand overruled.

Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana V.

State (Delhi Admn.) (1997) 1 SCC 361

and Reeta Nag V. State of W.B. (2009) 9

SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051 also

stand overruled.

43. We now come to certain

other judgments that were cited before

us. King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir

Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, was strongly

relied upon by Shri Basant for the

proposition that unlike superior Courts,

Magistrates did not possess any

inherent power under the CrPC. Since

we have grounded the power of the

Magistrate to order further investigation

until charges are framed under Section

156(3) read with Section 173(8) of the

CrPC, no question as to a Magistrate

exercising any inherent power under ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

12 wp 532-2021.odt

the CrPC would arise in this case.”

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the

question framed in the aforesaid manner. The

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

emphasized on the observation made in paragraph

42 quoted above to the effect that “power of the

police to further investigate the offence continues

right till the stage the trial commences”. On this

basis, it is contended that since the trial in the

present case had admittedly commenced, as

charges stood framed on 23/06/2021 and the

recording of evidence of witnesses have also begun,

supplementary charge-sheets placed on record on

24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, could not have been

permitted to be placed on record by the Sessions

Court.

15. A perusal of the judgments relied upon by

the learned APP would show that in the case of

Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata

Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

context of power under Section 173(8) of the

Cr.P.C. has held as follows:

“11. In such a situation the

power of the Court to direct the police

to conduct further investigation cannot

have any inhibition. There is nothing in

section 173(8) to suggest that the Court

is obliged to hear the accused before

any such direction is made. Casting of

any such obligation on the Court would ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

13 wp 532-2021.odt

only result in encumbering the Court

with the burden of searching for all the

potential accused to be afforded with

the opportunity of being heard. As law

does not require it, we would not

burden the Magistrate with such an

obligation.”

16. In the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Quereshi

Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), in this context, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“12. Sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 173 of

the Code permits further investigation,

and even de hors any direction from the

Court as such, it is open to the police to

conduct proper investigation, even after

the Court took cognizance of any

offence on the strength of a police report

earlier submitted. All the more so, if as

in this case, the Head of the Police

Department also was not satisfied of the

propriety or the manner and nature of

investigation already conducted.

13. In Om Prakash Narang &

Anr. V. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979

SC 1791, it was observed by this Court

that further investigation is not

altogether ruled out merely because

cognizance has been taken by the Court.

When defective investigation comes to

light during course of trial, it may be

cured by further investigation if

circumstances so permitted. It would

ordinarily be desirable and all the more

so in this case, that police should inform

the Court and seek formal permission to

make further investigation when fresh

facts come to light instead of being

silent over the matter keeping in view

only the need for an early trial since an

effective trial for real or actual offences

found during course of proper

investigation in as much relevant, ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

14 wp 532-2021.odt

desirable and necessary as an

expeditious disposal of the matter by the

Courts. In view of the aforesaid position

in law, if there is necessity for further

investigation the same can certainly be

done as prescribed by law. The mere

fact that there may be further delay in

concluding the trial should not stand on

the way of further investigation if that

would help the Court in arriving at the

truth and do real and substantial as well

as effective justice. We make it clear

that we have not expressed any final

opinion on the merits of the case.”

17. In the case of Rama Chaudhary Vs. State

of Bihar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and held as

follows:

“15. Among the other sub-

sections, we are very much concerned

about sub-section (8) of Section 173

which reads as under:

“173.(8) Nothing in this section shall be

deemed to preclude further

investigation in respect of an offence

after a report under sub-section (2) has

been forwarded to the Magistrate and,

where upon such investigation, the

officer in charge of the police station

obtains further evidence, oral or

documentary, he shall forward to the

Magistrate a further report or reports

regarding such evidence in the form

prescribed; and the provisions of sub-

sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may

be, apply in relation to such report or

reports as they apply in relation to a

report forwarded under sub-section

(2).”

A mere reading of the above

provision makes it clear that ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

15 wp 532-2021.odt

irrespective of the report under sub-

section (2) forwarded to the Magistrate,

if the office in charge of the police

station obtains further evidence, it is

incumbent on his part to forward the

same to the Magistrate with a further

report with regard to such evidence in

the form prescribed. The abovesaid

provision also makes it clear that

further investigation is permissible,

however, reinvestigation is prohibited.

16. The law does not

mandate taking of prior permission

from the Magistrate for further

investigation. Carrying out a further

investigation even after filing of the

charge-sheet is a statutory right of the

police, Reinvestigation without prior

permission is prohibited. On the other

hand, further investigation is

permissible.

17. From a plain reading of

sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of

Section 173, it is evident that even after

submission of the police report under

sub-section (2) on completion of the

investigation, the police has a right to

“further” investigation under sub-

section (8) of Section 173 but not “fresh

investigation” or “reinvestigation”. The

meaning of “further” is additional,

more, or supplemental. “Further”

investigation, therefore, is the

continuation of the earlier investigation

and not a fresh investigation or

reinvestigation to be started ab initio

wiping out the earlier investigation

altogether.

18. Sub-section (8) of Section

173 clearly envisages that on

completion of further investigation, the

investigating agency has to forward to ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

16 wp 532-2021.odt

the Magistrate a “further” report and

not a fresh report regarding the

“further” evidence obtained during such

investigation.

19. As observed in Hasanbhai

Valibhai Queresh V. State of Gujarat

(2004) 5 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri)

1603 the prime consideration for

further investigating is to arrive at the

truth and do real and substantial

justice. The hands of the investigating

agency for further investigation should

not be tied down on the ground of mere

delay. In other words

“ [t] the mere fact that there may be

further delay in concluding the trial

should not stand in the way of further

investigation if that would help the

court in arriving at the truth and do real

and substantial as well as effective

justice.” (SCC p.351, para 13)

20. If we consider the above

legal principles, the order dated 19-02-

2008 of the trial Court summoning the

witnesses named in the supplementary

charge-sheet cannot be faulted with.

21. It is true that after

enquiry and investigation, charges were

framed on 11-03-2004 and thereafter in

the course of the trial about 21

witnesses were examined. In the

meantime, the police submitted

supplementary charge-sheet with

certain new materials and on the basis

of supplementary charge- sheet, the

prosecution filed an application on 12-

1-2008 in the pending Sessions Trial

No. 63 of 2004 before the trial Court for

summoning the persons named in the

charge-sheet for their examination as

prosecution witnesses. On a careful

perusal of the application, the trial ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

17 wp 532-2021.odt

Court, by order dated 19-2-2008,

allowed the same and has summoned

those witnesses named in the

supplementary charge-sheet.

22. The law does not

mandate taking prior permission from

the Magistrate for further investigation.

It is settled law that carrying out further

investigation even after filing of the

charge-sheet is a statutory right of the

Police. (vide K. Chandrasekhar vs. State

of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC

(Cri) 129.) The material collected in

further investigation cannot be rejected

only because it has been filed at the

stage of trial. The facts and

circumstances show that the trial Court

is fully justified to summon witnesses

examined in the course of further

investigation. It is also clear from

Section 231 CrPC that the prosecution

is entitled to produce any person as

witness even though such person is not

named in the earlier charge-sheet.”

18. It is significant that in the aforesaid case

of Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar (supra),

charges were already framed and 21 witnesses

were already examined when the police submitted

supplementary charge-sheet with new material and

on that basis the prosecution filed an application

before the Trial Court for summoning persons

named in the supplementary charge-sheet as

prosecution witness.

19. It is also held in the case of Dharam Pal

Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160

that power of the Police Officer under section ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

18 wp 532-2021.odt

173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is unrestricted and that the

Magistrate has no power to interfere but it would

be appropriate on the part of the Investigating

Office to inform the Court. Reference is also made

to the abovementioned judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rama Choudhari v.

State of Bihar (supra). The relevant portion of the

said judgment in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of

Haryana (supra) reads as follows:

“21. In this context, we may notice the

statutory scheme pertaining to

investigation. Section 173 CrPC empowers

the police officer conducting investigation

to file a report on completion of the

investigation with the Magistrate

empowered to take cognizance of the

offence. Section 173(8) CrPC empowers

the officer-in-charge to conduct further

investigation even after filing of a report

under Section 173(2) CrPC if he obtains

further evidence, oral or documentary.

Thus, the power of the police officer under

Section 173(8) CrPC is unrestricted.

Needless to say, the Magistrate has no

power to interfere but it would be

appropriate on the part of the investigating

officer to inform the Court. It has been so

stated in Rama Chaudhary V. State of

Bihar.”

20. In the aforementioned judgment of

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon

judgment in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai

Quereshi Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), which in turn

was also relied upon in the said judgment in the

case of Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar (supra). ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

19 wp 532-2021.odt

Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat

(supra), specifically overruled certain judgments,

the judgments in the cases of Hasanbhai Valibhai

Quereshi Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and Rama

Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar (supra), were not

overruled. In fact, as noted hereinbefore, the

judgment in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai

Quereshi Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), was relied

upon.

21. Apart from this, in the case of Vinubhai

Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had framed specific

question in paragraphs 10 and 20, quoted above

concerning the issue as to whether the Magistrate

can order further investigation after a police report

has been forwarded to him under Section 173 of

Cr.P.C. While answering the said specific question,

certain observations have been made, which the

petitioners herein are relying upon to claim that the

two supplementary charge-sheets filed in the

present case could not have been accepted by the

Sessions Court and that, therefore, the

supplementary charge-sheets along with the

additional documents cannot be looked into.

Consequently, it is argued that the applications filed

by the Special Public Prosecutor for examining the

additional witnesses based on the documents filed

along with the two supplementary charge-sheets ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

20 wp 532-2021.odt

could not have been allowed.

22. Considering the position of law laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-

mentioned judgments, the contentions raised on

behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. A

criminal trial is required to be fair to all the stake

holders i.e. the accused, the prosecution and the

victim. The purpose of a criminal trial is to

ascertain the truth about the allegations levelled

against the accused persons and it is not just about

a bout over technicalities and over-zealous

protection of rights available to the accused. A

criminal trial to be conducted in a fair manner has

to be undertaken as an objective and unbiased

search for the truth so that justice is done to the

stake holders i.e. the accused, the prosecution and

the victim, avoiding injustice in the process.

23. In the present case, the petitioners are

being prosecuted for alleged offences in the

backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic and the

allegation is that they had violated the Drug Prices

Control Order 2013, relevant Government

Notifications and directions as also provisions of

the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by selling

remdesivir and other such drugs at an inflated

price. It is not only in the interest of the victims,

who form part of the collective that all relevant ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

21 wp 532-2021.odt

material is brought before the Sessions Court in the

trial, but, it is also in the interest of justice and in

furtherance of the search of truth that such

material is placed on record before the Sessions

Court. In the present case, the proceedings before

the Sessions Court have proceeded in a swift

manner. The FIR was registered on 18/04/2021,

charge-sheet was filed immediately on 03/05/2021

and charges were framed on 23/06/2021. In the

proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court

i.e. Suo Motu Criminal Application No.1/2021, the

aforementioned orders dated 29/04/2021 and

06/05/2021, were passed, directing that trials in

cases where there was black marketing of life

saving drugs like remdesivir, which were being sold

at astronomical prices, proceedings ought to be

undertaken swiftly. In such a situation, the

Investigating Officer moved the aforesaid

applications on 24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, to

place on record supplementary charge-sheets along

with documents to further the case of the

prosecution. The Special Public Prosecutor moved

the applications at Exhs.69 and 88, in order to

examine the additional witnesses, in the light of the

documents filed with the two supplementary

charge-sheets.

24. The question that arises for consideration

is, as to whether such material could be looked into

by the Sessions Court, in the facts and ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

22 wp 532-2021.odt

circumstances of the present case and whether the

additional witnesses could be permitted to be

examined to ascertain the truth in the charges

levelled against the petitioners. Fair trial in such

situations needs to be viewed from the perspective

of all relevant material being placed before the trial

Court / Sessions Court so that the truth of the

charges levelled against the accused (petitioners in

this case), can be ascertained. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah

Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors (2004) 4

SCC 158, has quoted the following words from the

case of Jennison v. Baker 1972 (1) All ER 997:

“The law should not be seen to sit by

limply, while those who defy it go free, and

those who seek its protection lose hope”

25. This does not mean that the trial should

be victim centric, forgetting the valuable rights

available to the accused, but, when the relevant

material becomes available in accordance with law

before the Trial Court, the accused cannot be heard

to say that the same cannot be looked into for a fair

trial. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2013)

6 SCC 348, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that administering criminal justice is a two-end

process, where guarding the ensured rights of the

accused under the Constitution is as imperative as

ensuring justice to the victim. Therefore, it becomes

clear that a fair trial envisages production of all ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

23 wp 532-2021.odt

relevant material before the trial Court for

discovering the truth of the matter. It is not as if

the petitioners would be put to any prejudice if two

supplementary charge-sheets and the additional

documents are examined by the Sessions Court in

the present case and the witnesses relevant to such

documents are permitted to be examined. In the

facts of the present case, filing of the

supplementary charge-sheets has in no manner

delayed the trial. In fact, the trial in the present

case is proceeding in a swift manner, as is evident

from the dates and events noted above.

26. Even otherwise, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners is not justified in

relying upon the above quoted observations made

in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State

of Gujarat (supra), regarding the prayer of the

police to further investigate under Section 173(8)

of Cr.P.C., for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has not laid down that supplementary

charge-sheet cannot at all be filed once the trial has

commenced. In fact, as noted above, in the case of

Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the filing of

supplementary charge-sheet and examination of the

additional witnesses relevant to the supplementary

charge-sheet after the trial had commenced and 21

witnesses had been examined in the trial. In such a

situation, the supplementary charge-sheets can ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

24 wp 532-2021.odt

certainly be placed on record by seeking permission

of the Sessions Court.

27. In the present case on 24/06/2021 and

15/07/2021, the Investigating Officer forwarded

the supplementary charge-sheets and additional

documents with applications. On one such

application, the Sessions Court recorded that the

documents are official documents issued by public

servants and, therefore, the production of the same

is allowed for the just decision of the case.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, it cannot be held that the Sessions

Court committed an error in permitting

supplementary charge-sheets along with additional

documents to be placed on record. For the same

reason, no interference is warranted in the

impugned order dated 23/07/2021, whereby the

Sessions Court allowed applications at Exhs.69 and

88 for calling additional witnesses in the light of

the supplementary charge-sheets placed on record

and in issuing summons to such additional

witnesses. This Court is of the opinion that the

Sessions Court adopted an approach expected in

the course of conducting a fair trial, for

ascertaining the truth of the charges levelled

against the petitioners. As noted above, no

prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, for the

reason that they can certainly contest the veracity

of the documents and also cross-examine the ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::

25 wp 532-2021.odt

additional witnesses sought to be examined on

behalf of the prosecution.

28. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners himself submitted that twelve

witnesses were already examined. This indicates

that the trial in the present case is being conducted

in an expeditious manner and that filing of the

supplementary charge-sheets has not in any

manner delayed the proceedings resulting in any

harassment to the petitioners.

29. In view of the above, this Court finds that

there is no substance in the contentions raised on

behalf of the petitioners. The contention that the

petitioners are denied a fair trial in the present case

is not supported on facts. Hence, the Writ Petition

is dismissed.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:13 :::