Legal experts unanimously say that the police have violated the established legal practice for re-investigation of a criminal case. Though they say that re-investigation of a case is legal yet an investigating agency needs to follow the proper procedure for that.
바카라It appears that the Mumbai police have violated the established legal principle for re-investigation. When a case is closed before a trial court, it cannot be reopened unless the higher judiciary, which means the high court or the Supreme Court, passes an order for the same,바카라 Nishant Kr Srivastava, a criminal lawyer from the Actus Legal law firm, says.
Arnab Goswami was accused of abetment to suicide of an interior designer Anvay Naik in 2018. The local police investigated it but didn바카라t find any evidence against him. It filed a closure report before the magistrate court and the matter was closed.
Now, police say that it has re-opened the investigation based on a complaint filed by Anvay Naik바카라s daughter. According to that, the police arrested Goswami on November 3.
Goswami바카라s lawyers have protested his arrest during the hearing in the Bombay High Court on November 5 and said that the police should have taken permission from the Magistrate바카라s court to start the re-investigation.
Now the question is what is the legal procedure to re-open the investigation?
Criminal lawyers say that Mumbai Police should have taken the permission of either the Bombay High Court or the Supreme Court providing the fresh evidence in the case. Even the magistrate's court order is not enough to start the re-investigation.
According to criminal lawyer Madhukar Pandey, 바카라Re-investigation is possible only when a high court or the Supreme Court permits it. The Supreme Court has settled the issue in cases such as State of Andhra Pradesh vs AS Peter and Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali.바카라
The apex court in Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali case says, 바카라In the case of a 바카라fresh investigation바카라, 바카라reinvestigation바카라 or 바카라de novo investigation바카라 there has to be a definite order of the court. The order of the Court unambiguously should state as to whether the previous investigation, for reasons to be recorded, is incapable of being acted upon.바카라
It further added, 바카라Neither the Investigating agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order or conduct 바카라fresh investigation바카라. This is primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code. Even an order of 바카라fresh바카라/바카라de novo바카라 investigation passed by the higher judiciary must always be coupled with a specific direction as to the fate of the investigation already conducted. The cases where such direction can be issued are few and far between.바카라
In the past, there were cases in which the higher judiciary permitted re-investigation, and justice was delivered.
바카라There are cases where closure reports have been filed and matters have been reopened as in terms of the decision in Bhagwant Singh바카라s case (1985 Supreme Court). The court has power even after a closure report to direct further investigation based on a protest petition,바카라 Criminal lawyer and former Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra said.
He added, 바카라Needless to say, in State of West Bengal case of 2010, the Supreme Court has stated that the right to a free and fair investigation by complainant/ victim is part of Article 21 rights.바카라
