JUDGMENT Surendra Narain Jha, J. This application is for quashing the order dated 12.5.1981 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, by which he has taken cognizance against the Petitioner & under sections 25A and 35 of the Indian Arms Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Arms Act’) in Kargahar P.S. Case No. 16(6)78. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised in this application, it will be necessary to state some facts. On 14.6.1978, the Officer-in-charge of Kargahar Police-Station organised a raid for the arrest and search of petitioner no. 2 and in course of such search, one double barrel gun and one cartridge were recovered and a case under sections 25A and 35 of the Arms Act, was registered. A copy of the said first information report is annexure-1 appended to this application. The police, after investigation, submitted a final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). A copy of the said final report is annexure-2 to this application. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, vide his order dated 23.11.78 accepted the final report and discharged the petitioners from the liabilities of the bail-bond and the case was disposed of. A copy of the said order is annexurc-3 to this application. 3. It appears that subsequently, on 13.10.1979, a prayer was made by the D.I. (Sasaram) as desired by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, for re-opening the aforesaid Kargahar P.S. Case No. 16(6)78. On the said prayer, the learned Magistrate directed the A.P.P. II to produce the order of the Superintendent of Police In order to ascertain whether there was any material to re-open the investigation, but from the petition, it seems that such an order was not produced before the court, but in the meantime, the police, on 2.5.81, submitted a charge-sheet in the aforesaid case against the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, took cognizance against the petitioners on 1l.5.1981 and transferred the case to the court of Shri P.K. Sinha. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this application for quashing the impugned order. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, took cognizance against the petitioners on 1l.5.1981 and transferred the case to the court of Shri P.K. Sinha. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this application for quashing the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error of law in re-opening the case after taking cognizance in view of the fact that no fresh material was placed before him by the police. It was further contended that no Respondent-investigation was done by the police to collect any further evidence, either oral or documentary, to substantiate the submission of a fresh charge-sheet where it had already submitted a final report after elaborate investigation. In other words, his contention was that the submission of the fresh charge-sheet without collecting any fresh material is bad in law. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this court in Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha & others V. The state of Bihar and anothe1 It was held in the aforesaid decision that where the final report by police holding the case against the accused persons to be untrue was accepted by the Magistrate earlier, the magistrate would not be justified in taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint petition (protest petition) in respect of the same facts constituting the offence which were mentioned in the final form when a judicial order was passed by accepting the final form. The question is if once the Magistrate accepts the final form, then on the same facts whether he is entitled to take cognizance on the basis of the complaint petition or protest petition. This question has been answered by a Bench decision of this Courat in Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary V. Raj Kishore Sha2. 5. The moot question for consideration in this application, is whether the police can re-investigate a case in which a report was submitted by the Investigating agency under section 173(2) of the Code and it has been accepted by the Magistrate. In this connection, I may refer to a Bench decision of this Court in Phulena Raivrs. State of Bihar & ors3. In this connection, I may refer to a Bench decision of this Court in Phulena Raivrs. State of Bihar & ors3. In that case it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the re-opening of the investigation was malafide and the action taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the requisition by the police was wholly without jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the state that it was the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognizable case and also to re-open investigation which may amount to further investigation. Their Lordships, after considering the arguments, held as follows : - “Now under section 173(8) powers have been given to investigating officers to reopen investigation in which a Final Form has been submitted earlier and after the investigation is completed a fresh report has to be submitted before the Magistrate under section 173(2) of the Code. But this does not necessarily mean that police officers have been given a free hand to reopen any case which has been fully investigated and a final report has been submitted. This can be done on such material which could not come to the knowledge of the investigating officer while he was conducting the investigation and gives a new look to the case. It should not be a mere routine affair." Therefore, in view of these decisions, it has been settled now that the police can re-investigate a matter even after submission of the final report, but, only on some fresh materials which could not come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer earlier while he was conducting the case. I may point out that Chapter XII of the Code deals with investigation of a cognizable case. Under section 156 of the Code, any officer-in-charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable case. Section 173 of the Code provides for submission of a report by an officer-in-charge of a police station on completion of the investigation to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. In this connection it is worthwhile to point out that sub-section (8) of section 173 of the Code is very material. It reads as under ;- "(8). Section 173 of the Code provides for submission of a report by an officer-in-charge of a police station on completion of the investigation to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. In this connection it is worthwhile to point out that sub-section (8) of section 173 of the Code is very material. It reads as under ;- "(8). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." This is a new provision. From a perusal of this provision, it is clear that in respect of an offence even after submission of a report under sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Code, the officer-in-charge on receiving any further evidence, shall forward to the Magistrate further report or reports regarding the offence. In this connection, section of the Code is also relevant which confers power on all police officers superior in rank to an office-in-charge of a police station exercise the same powers which may be exercised by such officer-in-charge. That means if something has come to the knowledge of the superior police officer, he can order for reinvestigation. In the instant case, it appears from annexure-5 which is a copy of the charge - sheet that it was submitted on the order of the Superintendent of Police. Rohtas. Therefore, in my view, the re-investigation made by the police on the order of the superior officer cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The whole grievance of the petitioners is that the police has submitted change sheet without collecting any further evidence, either oral or documentary, to justify the submission of a fresh charge-sheet where it had, after an elaborate investigation, submitted a final report. In other words, their grievance is that the cognizance should not have been taken on the same material. The whole grievance of the petitioners is that the police has submitted change sheet without collecting any further evidence, either oral or documentary, to justify the submission of a fresh charge-sheet where it had, after an elaborate investigation, submitted a final report. In other words, their grievance is that the cognizance should not have been taken on the same material. Having considered the cases already referred to above, I think the petitioners are justified in submitting that on the same material, cognizance could not have been taken by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order when earlier the police had submitted final report admitting 'the mistake of fact' and on that basis, the case was already disposed of. 6. Their Lordships ill the case of Phutena Rai (Supra) has already held that re-investigation can be done only on such materials which could not come to the knowledge of the re-investigating Officer while he was conducting the investigation earlier, but this re-investigation should not be made as a mere routine affair. Therefore, it has been settled now that the re-investigation can be made only when some new materials have come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer or any police officer higher in rank to the officer-in-charge of a police station and not otherwise. In the instant case, nothing has been produced by the State counse1 to show that the charge-sheet was submitted on some fresh materials which had not come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer while he was conducting the investigation. In that view of the matter, in my view, taking cognizance on the same material amounts to a abuse of the process of the court. If no fresh material is on the record, so as to justify taking of cognizance at a later stage when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 23.11.78 had already accepted the final report and discharged the Petitioner from the liability of their bail-bond and disposed of the case. On the careful consideration of the points, which have been raised in this case, I find that there is merit in this application. 7. In the result the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. Application allowed.