Order This is a petition filed by one V. Rajagopala Ayyar, an Advocate of Cuddalore, for revising and quashing the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, dated 27th September, 1954, in Crl. M.P.No.34 of 1954, in P.R.C.No.5 of 1954 on his file, on the ground that the lower Court had committed a grievous illegality in entertaining a supplemental charge-sheet filed in that case against the petitioner and four other persons on 30th August, 1954, when a final charge-sheet had been laid by the police on 25th May, 1954, against 13 other persons for the same offence of criminal conspiracy to murder one Krishnaswami Odayar. In the lower Court three contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner against the entertainment of the supplemental charge-sheet. The first was that the charge-sheet filed on 25th May, 1954, was a complete report within the meaning of section 173(1), Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 190(1) (b) and that cognizance had been taken by the magistrate of that charge sheet or report, and a case taken on file and that the police had no right to continue the investigation or to hold a fresh investigation and file a second charge-sheet for the same offence, impleading some others not mentioned in that first charge-sheet, and that such a supplemental charge-sheet would be null and void, or at least illegal. The second contention raised was that the second charge-sheet was not filed by the officer competent in law to file a charge-sheet under section 173(1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. The point taken here was that the supplemental charge-sheet was filed by Mr. Chelliah, an Inspector of the C.I.D. Crime Branch, Madras put in charge of the case and not by the Sub-Inspector of police in charge of the station, or the ordinary Inspector of police, his imenediate, superior. The third contention was that the supplemental charge-sheet should have been filed before a Second Class Magistrate, as the offence was a preliminary register case, and not before a First Class Magistrate. The lower Court discussed all these contentions elaborately, and rejected all of them, and held that it had ample power under the law to entertain the supplemental charge-sheet and add the five new accused names in it as having participated in the criminal conspiracy to murder and in the attempt to murder Krishnaswami Odayar. Hence this petition. Mr. The lower Court discussed all these contentions elaborately, and rejected all of them, and held that it had ample power under the law to entertain the supplemental charge-sheet and add the five new accused names in it as having participated in the criminal conspiracy to murder and in the attempt to murder Krishnaswami Odayar. Hence this petition. Mr. V.L. Ethiraj, who appeared in support of the petition, did not press before me the second and third contentions raised in the lower Court, and rejected by it obviously because they were without substance. It is clear that an Inspector, C.I.D. Crime Branch, Madras, put in charge of the investigation of an offence, in order to probe into the matter more thoroughly and competently, can file a charge-sheet, or a suppelemental charge-sheet if it were otherwise legal. That is why the second contention collapsed in the lower Court and was not pressed here. It is also clear that a First Class Magistrate has all the powers of a Second Class Magistrate, though he has some additional powers also. So, the supplemental charge-sheet, though it related to a preliminary register case, could be filed before the lower Court, if it were otherwise legal. That is why that contention also was not pressed by Mr. Ethiraj. Mr. Ethiraj, however, pressed vigorously the first contention, viz., that the police, after having laid a final charge sheet under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, had no power to investigate further into the offence and lay a supplemental charge sheet, and add some more accused. He relied on a ruling of Jai Lal, J., in Emperor v. Ali and another1for this position. But that ruling will not help him for this case. There, the learned Judge, held that when the investigation had been completed and a final charge-sheet laid under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, against certain persons as accused, the police had no power to resume the investigation in favour of the accused. That is a perfectly understandable proposition, and, with respect, I wholly agree with it. There, the learned Judge, held that when the investigation had been completed and a final charge-sheet laid under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, against certain persons as accused, the police had no power to resume the investigation in favour of the accused. That is a perfectly understandable proposition, and, with respect, I wholly agree with it. Once the police have completed their investigation and laid their final charge-sheet against some persons, as persons guilty of the offence named in the charge-sheet, it will be ridiculous to allow them to go back on that report and resume the investigation to prove that the persons they had named in their charge-sheet as the persons who had committed the offence, had really not committed the offence. When the Court has taken cognizance of an offence under a final charge-sheet and registered a case against the accused named in that charge-sheet, the Court has taken full seizin of the case regarding those accused and it is its duty, after trial, to hold whether the accused named by the police as the persons guilty of the offence are guilty or not. The police cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold, approbate and reprobate, charge-sheet a man and then resume the investigation to show that he had been wrongly charge-sheeted by them. That was the real point of the decision by Jai Lal, J., that will also be apparent from the fact that in a Bench decision in Mobinder Singh v. Emperor1, to which Jai Lal, J., was also a party along with Coldstream, J., it was held that the number of investigations is not limited by law and that when one investigation has been completed another investigation can be begun on fresh information received. It is obvious that Jai Lal, J., who was a party to this bench decision, dated 7th December, 1931, could not have suddenly changed his opinion, on 23rd May, 1932, in the decision in Ali’s case, relied on by Mr.Ethiraj, without even disclosing that he had revised his former opinion and arrived at a different opinion. It is obvious that Jai Lal, J., who was a party to this bench decision, dated 7th December, 1931, could not have suddenly changed his opinion, on 23rd May, 1932, in the decision in Ali’s case, relied on by Mr.Ethiraj, without even disclosing that he had revised his former opinion and arrived at a different opinion. It is, therefore, obvious that the later decision of Jai Lal, J., relied on by Mr.Ethiraj, can only be due to the circumstances that the police in that case were resuming investigation only in favour of the accused, in order to go back on their previous charge-sheet, and were not resuming investigation against other accused involved in the same offence, on fresh information. It has, been held in Divakar Singh v. Ramamurthi Naidu2, by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Phillips and Krishnan, JJ., that the number of investigations into a crime that can be made by the Police is not limited by law, and that the police, after submitting a report of an investigation, have power to make further investigation on receipt of further information. It is really that decision of this Court in that case that was followed by the Bench of the Lahore High Court in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor1cited above. There is no decision of this Court to the contrary, or of any other Court, so far as I can see. Indeed, an Allahabad case agrees with the Madras view. Mr.Ethiraj relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Tara Singh v. The State3 for his position that when the police had laid a final charge-sheet they had no power to resume investigation and lay a supplemental charge-sheet against some other accused for the same offence. I have looked into that ruling and see nothing whatever there in support of this position. In one place one of the learned Judges, Bose, J., says that he need not express any opinion whether the police are permitted to send in an incomplete report instead of a complete report. This question, whether after laying a final charge-sheet, after completing one investigation, they can, on further information, resume the investigation against some other persons involved in the same offence and lay a charge-sheet against them, was not considered or decided in that case. So, the rulings in Divakar Singh v. Ramamurthi Naidu2and Mohinder Singh v. Emperor1still remain good law. This question, whether after laying a final charge-sheet, after completing one investigation, they can, on further information, resume the investigation against some other persons involved in the same offence and lay a charge-sheet against them, was not considered or decided in that case. So, the rulings in Divakar Singh v. Ramamurthi Naidu2and Mohinder Singh v. Emperor1still remain good law. It was next urged by Mr.Ethiraj that the police could very well have filed a different charge sheet against the supplemental five persons instead of a supplemental charge-sheet to add these five persons to the other 13 persons already named in the first charge sheet and that the lower Court should have registered another case. I cannot agree. A Court takes cognizance of an offence, and not of the offenders named in the charge-sheet, and new accused can be added if justified. In this case, which was one of criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Krishnaswami Odayar, and attempt to murder him in pursuance of the common intention of conspirators, it would not have been reasonable for the lower Court (nor was it required by law) to separate the alleged five conspirators covered by the supplemental charge-sheet from the other 13 conspirators covered by the original charge-sheet, especially when the enquiry regarding the first 13 accused had not begun. The evidence would be the same, and, in a conspiracy case, the evidence against one conspirator will be evidence against the other conspirators, and wherever possible, Courts should join all the conspirators in one case, instead of dividing the conspiracy case into sections, and the accused into batches, a procedure which will handicap not only the prosecution but also the accused. The last argument urged by Mr.Ethiraj was that this petitioner Rajagopal Ayyar, had been named to the police even at the time of the first investigation, and before they laid the first charge-sheet, as one of the parties to the conspiracy to murder Krishnaswamy Odayar, and yet they had not included him as an accused in the first charge-sheet, and that, therefore, they could not investigate further regarding his case at least and lay a supplemental charge-sheet including him as an accused, I cannot agree. It is well known that all persons named to the police, by the complainant or others, as guilty of a certain offence need not be charge sheeted by them. It is well known that all persons named to the police, by the complainant or others, as guilty of a certain offence need not be charge sheeted by them. The very object of an investigation by the police is to see whether there is sufficient evidence against the persons named to them in a complaint, etc., to include them in the charge-sheet. In this country, and especially in factious villages, several persons are unnecessarily named as offenders in a complaint along with some persons who might have had a hand in the offence. So, the police have to investigate and only charge-sheet these against whom there is prima facie evidence. It is obvious, therefore, that when there was no prima facie evidence in the opinion of the police against this petitioner during the first investigation, he would not be included in the first charge-sheet but that, in the subsequent investigation, when the police (C.I.D.) received further information and thought that there was a prima facie case to go to the Court against this individual also, they included him in the supplemental charge-sheet. I cannot see any illegality or impropriety in this. Public interests required that, in proper cases, instead of prohibiting it. Mr.Ethiraj urged that there was nothing to show that the C.I.D. police had any further information regarding the petitioner. But that is a fact which will be known only to the police. It is very rarely that the accused would be told by the police, at such a stage of the case, about the information received by them during the first investigation and the further information received later on. It is, of course, open to the petitioner to show at the enquiry or trial, that he has been unnecessarily or even unjustly implicated in this case. But that is a matter depending on the evidence and has nothing to do with the legal point raised before me. In the end, therefore, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.