Judgment : The question mooted in this petition is whether a court is obliged to adjourn the trial on being informed that further investigation into the offence is in contemplation. The Public Prosecutor in the trial court moved that court (Assistant Sessions Court) to accord permission to “re-investigate” a case which was committed to the said court. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, before whom the motion came, rejected it on the ground that “a petition for re-investigation at this stage seems to be unsustainable since it is highly belated”. 2. Shri M. Ratna Singh, learned Public Prosecutor (who is also the Director General of Prosecution in Kerala), contended that the court is obliged to adjourn proceedings on being told by the police that further investigation is in contemplation. 3. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence on receipt of police report and issue process to the accused. If the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate has to commit the case to the Court of Session. Sec.173(2) of the Code enjoins a duty on the police officer, in charge of the police station concerned, to forward the final report, after completing investigation, to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. 4. Earlier, there were conflicting decisions from different High Courts in India as to whether police have power to conduct further investigation after filing final report under Sec.173(2) of the Code. However, the controversy is of no relevance now since the present Code contains a new provision i.e. sub-sec.(8) to Sec.173 of the Code. It reads thus: “(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-sec.(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon 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-secs.(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-sec.(2)”. 5. 5. Dealing with the said sub-section the Supreme Court has observed in Ram Lal Narang v. State, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1791, that “in the interest of independence of Magistracy and judiciary, in the interest of purity of administration of criminal justice and in the interest of comity of various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light”. [Italics supplied] 6. Though there was no statutory requirement for the police to obtain permission from the court concerned, the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1791, can now be regarded as law declared by the Supreme Court and hence it is necessary that the police should obtain formal permission from the court for conducting further investigation as envisaged in Sub-sec. (8). 7. But the question is, whether the court is obliged to grant permission and adjourn the trial in all cases in which police seek permission. If the court is so obliged, then progress of trial in any case can be stalled by the police merely seeking permission to conduct further investigation. Persons accused in a case, if they are capable of wielding political or other influence over police, may cause the police to move for permission to further investigate just for stalling the trial. It cannot be laid down as a principle that the court shall necessarily adjourn the trial whenever there is a move for conducting further investigation. The court must verify the records to satisfy itself as to whether the permission sought for is bona fide and is based on sufficient materials. If the court finds that there is reasonable prospect of police reaching a different conclusion in such further investigation, the court may properly adjourn the trial till the completion of such further investigation. Otherwise, the court is not obliged to bridle the trial. 8. On the merits of this case, some facts would be relevant. The present case involves offences under Secs.366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the sole accused had abducted a minor girl by name Sreeja and subjected her to rape. Otherwise, the court is not obliged to bridle the trial. 8. On the merits of this case, some facts would be relevant. The present case involves offences under Secs.366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the sole accused had abducted a minor girl by name Sreeja and subjected her to rape. After final report was laid, Sreeja filed a petition before the Chief Minister alleging that the investigation was biased and influenced and was calculated to protect the interest of the sole accused as the other culprits involved in the crime have not been booked. She also alleged that a gang rape was committed on her and she offered to identify the other culprits by sight. Her petition was forwarded by the Chief Minister to Director General of Police. It was upon the said materials that the Director General of Police ordered further investigation to be conducted by the Crime Branch, C.I.D. 9. I think on the facts of this case, the court should have granted formal permission to conduct such further investigation. The Court should also have adjourned the trial to a further date which may be reasonably necessary for contemplating the further investigation. It is open to the court to proceed with the trial if further investigation is not completed within a reasonable period. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Sessions Judge to look into the matter again in the light of the observations made above and take a decision afresh. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the above terms.