Short Note : The short facts leading to these revisions are that a challan under sections 420, 468, 471 & 467 IPC was filed against each of these applicants. The cases were originally presented at Rewa but as that Court had no jurisdiction as the alleged offences were committed at Indore, Rewa police submitted their challans through police station Juni-Indore in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, on 20-12-73. The challans were presented under section 512, Cr.P.C., 1898, alleging that the accused were then absconding. 2. Thereafter, when these cases were fixed on 20th February 1976 for hearing of the charge, the prosecution submitted an application in both these cases that as these accused persons were absconding when the challans were filed, the matter could not be investigated properly. They submitted that the handwriting of both the accused persons was required for comparison with the disputed documents by the handwriting expert. 3. Both the accused opposed the application. However, the learned trial Court allowed the same under section 344, Cr.P.C., and directed them to submit their handwritings. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants filed separate revision petitions before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, who held that provisions of section 344, Cr.P.C., did not apply but held that the applications could be allowed under section 173, Cr.P.C. Hence these second revisions by the accused persons. Held : Though this new provision does not apply to these cases which are governed by the old Code, still the language of the new provision does not assist the prosecution case. All that section 173 says is that the final chargesheet shall be filed after the investigation is closed. There is nothing said in the Code as to when the investigation is to he considered to have ended, If a, police officer, after he lays a charge, gets information, he can still investigate and lay further charge-sheet. A report under section 173, is normally the and of the investigation. Sometimes, however, a police officer, after submitting a report under section 173, comes upon evidence bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. A report under section 173, is normally the and of the investigation. Sometimes, however, a police officer, after submitting a report under section 173, comes upon evidence bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. In such cases, sub-section (8) provides that further investigation of the offence after submission of a report under sub-section (2) is not precluded; that further report or reports may be forwarded pertaining to the additional evidence obtained during further investigation and that such reports are not completely immuned from the application of the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6). The police have the right to re-open the investigation after filing of the charge-sheet under this section if fresh facts come, to light. 4. In the present cases, it is not clear why the challans were filed if the investigations were not complete. It also does not appear that even after the arrest of the applicants new facts have come to the knowledge of the police which may have a vital connection with the offence alleged against the applicants. Even after the applicants were arrested, it does not appear, that the police opposed their bail-applications on the ground that the investigation is incomplete or that the police wanted their handwriting for the purpose of comparison and, admittedly, the application filed on behalf of the prosecution in each of the two cases, for obtaining the handwriting of the applicants for comparison, is very much belated for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Similarly, it does not appear that the police applied for cancellation of bail on the ground that the custody of the applicants was necessary for further investigation. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the prosecution cannot now be permitted to obtain the specimen handwriting of the applicants by resorting to the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C. 5. Similarly, it does not appear that the police applied for cancellation of bail on the ground that the custody of the applicants was necessary for further investigation. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the prosecution cannot now be permitted to obtain the specimen handwriting of the applicants by resorting to the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C. 5. As regards the argument that in these cases the Court has not given a direction, under section 73 of the Evidence Act, to enable it to compare the disputed writings with the specimen writings to be obtained in the presence of the Court for purpose of comparison by it, I am of opinion that it is not necessary at this stage to consider the same in the light of the view taken by me and also in view of the decision reported in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 as, on that account, the applicants are not at all likely to be prejudiced. Revisions allowed, AIR 1961 SC 1808 relied on.