IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2787 of 2008 PANKAJ SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH @ PANKAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 14. 15.04.2009 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Counsel for the Vigilance has also assisted the Court as initially the vigilance was impleaded as a party. It is submitted that the matter has not been registered by the Vigilance Department and is being investigated by the local Police. Darbhanga (Sadar) Bahadurpur PS Case No. 196 of 2007 came to be registered on 22.9.2007 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner was the informant. The allegation was with regard to movement of certain bags of grains from the railway rakes without proper authority when the tractors carrying them were intercepted. The Police commenced investigation. During course of investigation the informant himself was found to be involved in the allegation of wrong transposition of the grains on the tractors after unloading from the railway rakes. Based on these materials of the involvement of the informant/petitioner himself Darbhanga (Sadar) Bahadurpur PS Case No. 230 of 2007 came to be registered on 14.11.2007 under Sections 379, 420, 120 of the Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter of both the FIRs are the very same bags of grains unloaded from the same railway rakes transported on the 2 same very tractors. Whatever may have transpired during investigation of the first case had to be the subject matter of the Police Report in the former case itself and materials transpiring during investigation could not become the subject matter of a fresh FIR. He relies upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 (T.T.Antony Vrs State of Kerala & ors.). Learned Counsel for the State and the Vigilance pointed out that the petitioner was the informant himself in the former case. His involvement has transpired during investigation. The allegations against him are also under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court can do no better than to quote from paragraph 20 of the judgement relied upon by the petitioner which reads as follows:- “20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 Cr.P.C. only the earliest of the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate nor merely the cognizable offence 3 reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C.” After the Police Report is submitted depending on the sections charged the trial shall then be conducted before the competent court. This Court is satisfied that since the subject matter of the two FIRs arising out of one series of transaction when during investigation of the first the petitioner who is the informant has come within the ambit of suspicion also there is no justification for institution of a second FIR based on the materials collected during investigation. If these materials have been collected during investigation of the former case, the Police has adequate authority to file appropriate reports in the first case itself. Bahadurpur PS Case No. 230 of 2007 is held to be not sustainable. The investigation and trial in Bahadurpur PS Case No. 196 of 2007 shall continue in accordance with law. It shall be open for the investigating agency to file further/additional report in Bahadurpur PS Case No. 196 of 2007 with regard to materials collected during investigation of the same. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)