Filing of charge-sheet does not extinguish statutory power of further investigation or seizure under Section 173(8).

The CBI registered a case against the Respondent, a Superintendent of Customs, alleging he demanded a bribe of ₹3,00,000 to shield a company from drug seizure implications

During a trap operation, the Respondent and others were apprehended, and the bribe amount was recovered

On July 17, 2013, the CBI issued a direction under Section 102 of the CrPC to freeze the Respondent’s savings account and Locker No. 68 at Allahabad Bank

A charge-sheet was filed on December 30, 2013

Subsequently, the Respondent's wife applied for de-freezing the account and locker

On August 21, 2014, the Special Judge allowed the prayer, holding that the CBI lacked authority to inspect or retain control over the locker once the charge-sheet was submitted

The CBI assailed this order, arguing that the locker keys were never recovered and further investigation was necessary

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which preserves the statutory competence of an agency to conduct "further investigation" even after a final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded

The principle from Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, distinguishing "further investigation" (supplementary) from "fresh investigation" (re-investigation)

The doctrine from Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, asserting that the discovery of truth is paramount and cannot be precluded by the mere filing of a charge-sheet

Section 102 CrPC regarding the power to seize property, noting such power must bear a reasonable nexus to the investigation

The Court reasoned that Section 173(8) CrPC creates a clear distinction between the culmination of one stage of investigation and the ongoing statutory competence to collect additional evidence

It found that the Special Judge erred in treating the charge-sheet as a jurisdictional embargo

The High Court observed that in corruption cases, assets are often concealed, and the CBI had explicitly notified the trial court that the locker could not be inspected earlier because the keys were not recovered

While the Respondent argued that the locker was not a "relied upon" document in the charge-sheet, the Court held that Section 173(8) exists precisely to allow for the inclusion of subsequently discovered evidence

The Court balanced this with the Respondent’s proprietary rights, noting that freezing cannot be indefinite and must be subject to judicial supervision

It modified the impugned order, allowing the CBI to conduct a time-bound inspection of the locker and bank account in the presence of the account holders. The CBI was directed to submit a supplementary report post-inspection, after which the Trial Court must reconsider the necessity of continued freezing based on any new materials recovered.