KHAN, J. - (1.) MOHD. Idris, complainant, had lodged an FIR with P/s. Nawalgarh on 4. 3. 1988 alleging therein that on that day as many as 18 persons had looted his shop and put the same on fire. The present petitioner was not named amongst the miscreants. After investigation of the case, the police submitted a report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. against other persons. As against the present petitioner and some others it was stated in the said police report that further evidence shall be collected against them and the same would be submitted before the court as per provisions under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. The learned committal Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions against the persons named in the police report submitted under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. from time to time.
(2.) THE submission of the petitioner is that in the month of June, 1999, the police started harassing him and his family members residing at Nawalgarh. THE petitioner himself had been residing in Guwahati for the last about 15 years. THE petitioner thereupon approached this court on 7. 7. 1999 with the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. However, on Public Prosecutor's making a statement at bar that evidence collected by the police by that time did not disclose grounds for complicity of the petitioner as accused in the case, the said application was rejected. Now, the petitioner has again approached this court for the same relief as he is being allegedly harassed by the police officers at P/s. Nawalgarh and a threat of submitting an additional chargesheet against him was being extended to him. From the narration of the above facts it is clear that on the basis of a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr. P. C. the learned committal Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, alleged to have been committed in the present case. Thereafter, having complied with the provisions of Section 207/209 Cr. P. C. , he had committed the case to the court of Sessions. Once a court had taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report, the police, in exercise of its powers under Sec. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. may no doubt continue the investigation so as to collect additional evidence in the case. But in any case, the further evidence so collected by the police in exercise of its power under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. has to be submitted to the court concerned within a reasonable time. Collection of additional evidence as per provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. , unless such collection of further evidence is dependent upon the availability of the accused by way of arrest or otherwise like evidence of identification of his person or of property recovered from his person or from his possession at his instance cannot be unnecessarily and un-reasonably delayed without causing serious damage to the very system of administration of criminal justice. It has generally been experienced by this court that in many a cases, particularly cases involving heinous offences like murders, dacoities, rapes etc. etc. the police submits its report U/s. 173 Cr. P. C. against some of the persons but as against some others, who have though been found involved in the commission of cognizable offences in that case on the basis of the evidence collected in the course of investigation by that time yet, for one reason or the other could not be arrested by or available to the police by the time the report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. was submitted against others, it is reported that investigation is being kept pending against them under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. and a report against such persons would be submitted subsequently. But such additional report under Section 173 (8) (though additional `evidence' and not an additional `report' is required to be submitted within the scope of Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C.) is either never submitted subsequently or if at all one is submitted in a given case, it is not submitted not before the completion of the trial against the other persons who were named as accused in the police report submitted under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. at the earlier point of time or even not before the pronouncement of a verdict by the trial court in the case. Such a practice causes serious damage to the very system of administration of criminal justice. The real culprits either go scot free or get the undeserved benefit of a favourable verdict in the case against the other co-accused, this is likely to cause erosion in the faith of the people in the legal system of the country. Such a practice may be approved only in those cases where due to the offenders' non-availability to the police, a request for proceedings under Section 299 Cr. P. C. is made against the absconding accused in which case relevant and material evidence against him may be recorded in his absence and such evidence may be used against the absconder, on his subsequent appearance, under the circumstances enumerated under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act for admissibility of the evidence recorded in his absence. It is, therefore, desirable that while submitting a report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. against some of the accused and, at the same time keeping investigation pending under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. for collecting additional evidence against some the police should make a specific report to the Magistrate/court to record evidence under Section 299 Cr. P. C. against such non available persons so that the relevant and material evidence recorded at the trial of other accused and which evidence incriminates the absconding accused also may be subsequently utilised against them as per relevant provisions of law. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that whatever evidence the investigating officer might have collected by this time against the present petitioner, he shall submit such additional evidence before the trial court within a period of one month. The petitioner is directed to appear before the court of Magistrate concerned on the last day of the next month, i. e. 30. 9. 99 by which time the police shall positively submit additional evidence against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case as per relevant provisions of law. This petition stands disposed of in the above manner. . ;