ORDER: Petitioner seeks to revise an order of the Court of Sessions, Kasargod, in Crl.R.P.No.26 of 1988 setting aside the order of the Magistrate declining permission to send material objects involved in the ease, to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Petitioner (second accused) and fifty-two others are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Secs.143 , 147 , 148 , 323 , 324 , 120-B , 436 , 307 , 302 and 34 read with Sec.149, I.P.C., at or about 5.30 P.M. on 23.3.1987 - the date of general elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. On 29.3.1988, the charge-sheet was filed. Along with that, a petition was made seeking permission to send certain material objects produced in Court to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Reason for the petition was that a report obtained earlier from the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Calicut contained mistakes. The Magistrate declined the prayer, and on revision the Sessions Judge granted it. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the order would operate to the prejudice of the accused, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order in the nature made In answer, learned Special Prosecutor submitted that, what was resorted to was only a step-in investigation, and that investigating agency had full powers in this regard. Sanction of Court was sought, only because the articles were in Court. If it were not in the Court, there would have been no bar in forwarding material objects for analysis, submits the Prosecutor. Fact that it was in Court, would not change the legal position, according to him. Both sides referred to the decision in Ram Lal Narang v. State Ram Lal Narang v. State (1979)2 S.C.C. 233: 1979 S.C.C. (Crl.) 479: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1791: 1979 Crl.L.J. 1248 to illustrate the scope of Sec.173(8). 3. The sweep of powers available to investigating agency arise for consideration. Both sides proceed on the basis that the action contemplated is by way of investigation. I will assume so, for it could not be referred to any other power. 4. Powers of investigating agency have been indicated in Khwaja Nazir Ahanvnad v. Emperor Khwaja Nazir Ahanvnad v. Emperor (1945)1 MLJ. 86: 1945 M.W.N. 49: A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18. Both sides proceed on the basis that the action contemplated is by way of investigation. I will assume so, for it could not be referred to any other power. 4. Powers of investigating agency have been indicated in Khwaja Nazir Ahanvnad v. Emperor Khwaja Nazir Ahanvnad v. Emperor (1945)1 MLJ. 86: 1945 M.W.N. 49: A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18. The Judicial Committee stated the position so: “In India there is a statutory right on the part of the Police (under Secs.154 and 156) to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the Judicial Authorities and it would be an unfortunate result, if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights”. [Emphasis supplied] The statement of law made by the Judicial Committee, has been approved by the Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Bask State of West Bengal v. S.N. Bask A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 447, Nirmal Jeet In A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 316, the Supreme Court stated: “There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is exclusively the field reserved for the executive through the Police Department…… Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for proving the offence”. [Emaphsis supplied] In A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 195, the Court once again observed that, Courts must be “alive to the fact that scheme of law is that investigation has been entrusted to Police”. 5. Thus it is clear that, Police enjoy unbridled powers in the matter of investigation, Sec.173(8) of the Code does not contemplate a different situation. In A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1791, the Supreme Court considered the Section, observing: “….the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate… These statutory rights and duties of the police are circumscribed by any power of superintendence or interference in the Magistrate…it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation”. [Emphasis supplied] Sec.173(8) clearly recites that “nothing in the Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation after filing a report.” The Court thus recognised what was always implied. Codification is only a recognition, and not a restriction. When Sec.173(8) gives recognition to an unqualified power, it cannot be read as importing a prohibition. [Emphasis supplied] Sec.173(8) clearly recites that “nothing in the Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation after filing a report.” The Court thus recognised what was always implied. Codification is only a recognition, and not a restriction. When Sec.173(8) gives recognition to an unqualified power, it cannot be read as importing a prohibition. Thus, seekinga prohibition from Sec.173(8), would be to go against the tenor and expressed intent of the Section. For this reason, petitioner's contention must fail. The further grievance that the report would prejudice the petitioner, is without substance. The findings to be made, cannot be predicted. Besides, evidentiary value of the report is to be determined by the trial Court. There is no question of prejudice, at all. 6. Scheme of the Code is not to further the interest of accused alone by jettisoning material gathered by the investigation. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh State of U.P. v. Anil Singh A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1998 it is as much the responsibility of the Court to punish the guilty, as it is its responsibility to protect the innocent. Both are public duties and both must be observed. 7. Revision petition is without merit, and is accordingly dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.