High Court may direct further investigation even after acquittal to identify real culprits, excluding acquitted persons.

A theft occurred in 1978 involving gold and silver ornaments belonging to the respondent’s family.

While the accused were acquitted in 1990, the trial court directed the return of seized ornaments to the respondent.

In 2011, when the ornaments were called for from the Sub-Treasury, it was discovered they had been replaced with fake/artificial items.

The respondent filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 5831/2011), wherein the Single Judge directed the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to register an FIR and the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the JMFC presiding in 1994.

The State filed a Writ Appeal, which was disposed of on 06/03/2020, affirming the direction for a CID FIR.

The State then filed I.A. No. 2823/25 for recall/modification of that order, revealing—for the first time—that an FIR (No. 68/94) had already been registered years prior and had resulted in an acquittal in 2019.

The Court noted that this critical information was suppressed by State officials during previous hearings.

1. Whether the Court can direct further investigation by the CID after the trial has already resulted in an acquittal, without violating the principle of double jeopardy.

2. Whether the direction to register a fresh FIR must be modified in light of the pre-existing FIR and concluded trial.

The Court applied the doctrine of protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on P. Manikandan v. CBI (2024) and Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing "retrial" (redoing a finished judicial process) from "reinvestigation" (collecting evidence for a fresh trial).

It further cited Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and M.M. Mani v. State of Kerala (2012) to establish that while an acquitted person cannot be re-tried for the same offence, the court may direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC against other unknown culprits to ensure the "real culprits" are booked, especially in cases of "shoddy investigation" or "exceptional circumstances" where state custody is breached.

The Court observed that the replacement of original gold with fake ornaments while in state custody (Sub-Treasury) was a grave and "exceptional circumstance".

However, since a trial had already concluded in 2019 resulting in an acquittal for one accused, a fresh direction to register a new FIR for the same incident was legally untenable as it would lead to double jeopardy.

The Court found that State officials had "deliberately suppressed" the fact of the pending trial and previous FIR during the pendency of the Writ Appeal to avoid liability.

To balance the need for justice with constitutional protections, the Court determined it could modify the order to direct "further investigation" instead of a "fresh FIR," specifically targeting the roles of Sub-Treasury officials and other potential culprits, while strictly excluding the previously acquitted individual from the scope of the new probe.

It held that instead of registering a fresh FIR, the CID shall conduct a "further investigation" into the existing Crime No. 68/94 (sections 409, 120B IPC) to identify the persons responsible for the replacement of the ornaments.

It specifically ordered that the acquitted accused, Narendra Kumar Mahor, shall not be subjected to interrogation or further investigation to protect his fundamental right against double jeopardy.

The Trial Court was directed to ensure the record remains sealed and safe.