List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2026) held that police cannot proceed with further investigation on their own after filing a final report, and it is mandatory to obtain leave of the court before conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) BNSS. 

What was the Background of Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• In 2013, an FIR for gang rape was registered in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. 
• After investigation, the police submitted a Closure Report in May 2014. 
• The Magistrate accepted the Closure Report in September 2015 after the complainant failed to appear or protest against it. 
• Nearly four years later, based on a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the state and police authorities unilaterally ordered a "further investigation" under Section 173(8) CrPC in June 2019 and April 2021. 
• This further investigation led to DNA collection from the accused persons without court permission. 
• The Appellants challenged these executive orders before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), arguing that police could not unilaterally order further investigation after judicial closure of the case. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the prosecutrix had filed a protest petition and that the DNA test was aimed at identifying the real accused. 
• However, the record showed that the prosecutrix had not filed any protest petition at the initial stage when the closure report was accepted. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the accused persons moved to the Supreme Court. 

Issue Before the Court: 

• The central issue was whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court answered the issue in the negative and set aside the Allahabad High Court's impugned order. 
• The judgment authored by Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the power to direct further investigation rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. 
• The Court held that if the police/investigation agency believes further investigation is necessary to uncover complete facts and truth, they are binding to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court. 
• The Court emphasized that investigating agencies cannot direct an order for further investigation by themselves. 
• Once such an application is filed by the investigation agency, the Magistrate/Court would apply its judicial mind considering the facts, circumstances, and reasons demonstrated by the investigating agency to decide whether further investigation should be ordered under Section 173(8) CrPC. 
• The Court relied on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013), where it was held that though there is no specific requirement in Section 173(8) CrPC to conduct further investigation with the leave of the court, this requirement must be read into the provisions as a necessary implication. 
• The Court noted that investigating agencies have understood and adopted seeking court permission as a legal practice.  
• The Court also relied on Peethambaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2023), wherein the District Police Chief had ordered further investigation, which was quashed by holding that the power to order further investigation rests either with the Magistrate concerned or a higher court, but not with an investigation agency. 
• The Supreme Court quashed the further investigation orders issued by the Police Authorities without seeking the court's leave.

What is Further Investigation?

• Section 173 (8) of CrPC provides for further investigation. 
  • This provision allows for further investigation of an offence even after a police report (charge sheet) under Section 173(2) has been submitted to the Magistrate. 
  • If, during such further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains new evidence, whether oral or documentary, he is required to submit a supplementary report to the Magistrate. 
  • The supplementary report must be in the prescribed format, similar to the original charge sheet. 
  • The procedural rules contained in sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 shall, as far as applicable, also apply to these supplementary reports. 
  • This provision ensures that investigation remains open and flexible, allowing the discovery of additional facts to ensure justice. 
• This provision is now provided under Section 193 (9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Section 193 (9) of BNSS also adds a proviso which was not in Section 173 (8) of CrPC: 
  • The Proviso provides that: 
    • Further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case, and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court. 

What is the Landmark Judgment on Further Investigation? 

• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2019): 
  • The Court criticized the view that a Magistrate's power to order further investigation ceases once process is issued, or the accused appears before the court. 
  • The judgment clarified that a criminal trial begins only after charges are framed, not merely after cognizance is taken. 
  • The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution requires a fair and just investigation, which may necessitate further inquiry. 
  • It noted that the police retain the power to conduct further investigation up to the trial stage, subject to Magistrate’s permission under Section 173(8) CrPC. 
  • The idea that a Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction ends mid-way through pre-trial proceedings was declared a travesty of justice. 
  • The Magistrate’s powers are derived from Sections 156(1), 156(3), 2(h), and 173(8) CrPC, and are available at all pre-trial stages. 
  • The Court affirmed that a Magistrate can even suo motu order further investigation, based on the facts of the case. 
  • It stressed that uncovering the truth and ensuring justice (including identifying the guilty and protecting the innocent) is more important than avoiding delay. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and SC Sharma in the case of Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026) held that the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be extended to cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants, as the provision is confined to decisions or recommendations taken in the discharge of official duties. 

What was the Background of Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitions arose from a Rajasthan High Court judgment which had upheld the jurisdiction of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau to register and investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees posted within the State. 
• The High Court held that prior consent or approval of the Central Bureau of Investigation was not required for such investigations. 
• The petitioner was facing offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• The High Court had answered two questions of law against the accused, holding that the State ACB was competent to register cases under the PC Act against Central Government employees. 
• The High Court further held that charge-sheets filed by the State ACB without CBI approval were valid. 
• The employee argued that no investigation could proceed without prior sanction from the appointing authority, i.e., the central government under Section 17-A of the Act.  
• The petitioner contended that since he was a Central Government employee, only the CBI could investigate corruption cases against him. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 17-A was enacted with a particular object and applies to enquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in discharge of official functions or duties. 
• The Court emphatically stated that Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. 
• The Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's view that it is incorrect to say that only the CBI could institute prosecution against the union government's employee. 
• The Court clarified that even the state police can proceed with the investigation against Central Government employees. 
• The Court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 17-A only arises when the offending act was committed during the discharge of an official duty. 
• Since the alleged act of illegal gratification was not an act covered under official duties, the requirement of prior sanction could not arise. 
• The Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, affirming the State ACB's jurisdiction to investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees. 

What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

About: 

• Section 17A was inserted into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 through the 2018 amendment. 
• It mandates that there should be prior sanction from the Government to launch an investigation against a public servant under the Act. 
• The provision states that no police officer can initiate any enquiry, inquiry or investigation against a public servant in relation to any decision or recommendation made in discharge of official functions without prior approval of the competent authority. 
• The competent authority refers to the appropriate authority of the Central or State Government. 

Rationale Behind Section 17A: 

• The provision was introduced to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints against public servants. 
• It aimed to protect public servants from harassment through malafide investigations. 
• The intent was to shield honest officers who make bona fide decisions in discharge of official duties. 
• Proponents argued it was necessary to prevent policy paralysis that could arise from fear of investigation. 
• The provision sought to create a statutory filter to screen complaints before full-fledged investigation.