ORDER 1. This petition in revision has been preferred against the order dated 3 1.8.1995. passed by Shri P.Y. Namjoshi, Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby he allowed the application purporting to be under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directed the C.B.I. to make further investigation. It raises a short but interesting question of law. 2. The point involved is as to whether further investigation could be ordered by the learned Sessions Judge after framing of charge. 3. Briefly narrated the facts are that the accused-petitioner and respondents No.2 to 6 were involved in a case under section 302, 302/34 and 201 IPC and under section 27/25-A of Arms Act. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges on 7.7.1995, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record and the case was directed to be fixed for admission or denial of the documents under section 294 CrPC and for trial programme. On the next date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was listed on 21.7.1995. On that day, instead of submitting a trial programme, a petition was moved purporting to be under section 173 (8) CrPC, wherein it was prayed that further investigation be directed. It was alleged that the investigation, which was conducted, was not impartial and it was done in order to give benefit to the accused so that they may be acquitted. The grounds on which further investigation was prayed were mentioned. The application was contested and a written objection was also filed. After considering the entire material, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application, hence this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge, has mentioned, in para 15 of the his order, the defects which according to him existed in the investigation. Again in paragraph 20, three defects were pointed out and on its basis it has allowed the application and directed the CBI to form points of investigation on which the additional investigation was to be made. Again in paragraph 20, three defects were pointed out and on its basis it has allowed the application and directed the CBI to form points of investigation on which the additional investigation was to be made. He urged that the powers under section 173 (8) CrPC cannot be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, if from the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was no material instead of framing charge, he ought to have discharged the accused, but in the present case, he found material and hence he framed the charges. The learned Court had no jurisdiction to point out the lacuna in the prosecution at this initial stage. There are certain facts, which go to show that the learned Sessions Judge did not care to go through the record, while observing that four defects were there in the investigation. He urged that it has been observed that the police did not seize the arm used, but there is on record a memo which shows that magazine was recovered. It has further been mentioned that clothes have not been recovered, but it is also not correct. There is no material to show that the investigation was affected on account of political pressure. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Pannalal v. Dr. Veer Shan '( 1992 JLJ 327 ), wherein this Court took the view that strong grounds must exist for directing re-investigation. The grounds on the basis of which the learned Court has directed re-investigation are superficial. Power under section 156 CrPC too cannot be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge at this juncture. Lastly, he urged that the learned Court has directed investigation by the CBI. He urged it was also not within his jurisdiction because the offence for which the accused persons are be;i1g tried is not a specified offence under section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and as such CBI could not be directed to investigate the matter. In this connection reliance has been placed on Saroja v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1991 CrLJ 755 ) Madras High Court. It may also be mentioned that in this case, the CBI has also put in appearance and has supported the application. In this connection reliance has been placed on Saroja v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1991 CrLJ 755 ) Madras High Court. It may also be mentioned that in this case, the CBI has also put in appearance and has supported the application. It has been contended on behalf of the CBI that it is an investigation agency of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).The main object is to make investigation relating to corruption cases of Central Government Employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or such offences as are notified by the Central Government under sections 3 and 5 of the said Act. The impugned order is without jurisdiction. He also contended that under section 173 (8) CrPC no direction can be given to the CBI for the investigation. The magistrate can direct re-investigation under section 156 (3) and that too before framing of charge or taking cognizance of the offence and not thereafter. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI placed reliance on lndumati M. Shah and others v. Narendra Muljibhai Asra and others ( 1995 CrLJ 918 ) and argued that in that case it has heen laid down by the Gujrat High Court that Subordinate Courts cannot entrust investigation to any authority except referred to in section 156 CrPC. A reference has also been made to Saroja's case (supra). The next contention of the learned counsel is that the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 1323 (Kashmiri Devi v. Delhi (Administration) referred to by the learned Sessions Judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case the charge had not been framed and the directions were given by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court under its extraordinary powers, which are not invested in the Subordinate Courts. On the other hand, it has been contended that the learned Sessions Judge has given satisfactory ground for coming to the conclusion that the case required re-investigation on the points mentioned in the order itself. The contention that no re-investigation can be ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct. 5. Before entering into the legal question raised, it is important to mention the provisions of section 173 (8) CrPC. The contention that no re-investigation can be ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct. 5. Before entering into the legal question raised, it is important to mention the provisions of section 173 (8) CrPC. Under this section it has been provided that: "(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 further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-section (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 subsection (2)." A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that it gives wide powers to the police to reinvestigate and collect evidence in a given case. In a decision reported in 1986 CCrJ (MP) 203 (Shailendra Singh Nahar v. State of M.P.), this Court took a view that powers should be exercised with due circumspection and consideration lest such power is likely to be abused. In 1989 CRLJ 1211 (Sarla v. State of Gujrat) Gujrat High Court had taken a view that where a charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently an application is filed for re-investigation in respect of some other person the Sessions Judge cannot reject such an application taking the view that such a power is vested only with the Magistrate. On the basis of a decision reported in Om Prakash v. State (1964) 66 Punj. L.R. 181, quoted in Sohani's Code of Criminal Procedure; 1994 Edn. Volume II, Note 39, Para 2, it has been mentioned that the prosecution is not cribbed, cabined or confined within the four corners of the report under this section. There is no restriction placed by the Legislature on the reception of subsequent material before the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. In the same Book, it has also been mentioned that the principles upon which the jurisdiction or authority to make further investigation is founded, applies as much to a case pending before the Court of a Magistrate as to the case pending before the Court of Sessions. In the same Book, it has also been mentioned that the principles upon which the jurisdiction or authority to make further investigation is founded, applies as much to a case pending before the Court of a Magistrate as to the case pending before the Court of Sessions. The practical necessity for existence of power to make further investigation and the interest of justice furnished the jurisdiction for such authority and these principles apply to any criminal trial whether pending before the Court of Magistrate or before the Court of Session, there is in principle no distinction between the Court of a Magistrate and the Court of Sessions so far as to make further investigation by the police concerned. This observation is based upon 1989 CriLJ 1211.(Guj.) (Sarlaben Virsingh v. State of Gujrat), a decision of Gujrat High Court. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction under S. 173 (8) CrPC to order for reinvestigation does not appear to be correct. Section 173 (8) CrPC is wide enough to empower the Court to order further investigation. 6. I am, therefore, of the view that it is incorrect to contend that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to order reinvestigation. 7. The next question is as to whether on the basis of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in directing further investigation by the CBI. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the CBI, as pointed out above, is that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette specify the offence or class of offences, which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The contention is that the offence in question is under section 302 IPC. It is not a notified offence, and as such, the learned Sessions Judge could not direct the CBI to make investigation. Reliance was placed on 1991 CrLJ 555 (Madras). It has not been shown that there is any Notification under section 3 of the said Act that specified office is under S. 302 which has to be investigated by the CBI. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the CBI appears to be correct. Reliance was placed on 1991 CrLJ 555 (Madras). It has not been shown that there is any Notification under section 3 of the said Act that specified office is under S. 302 which has to be investigated by the CBI. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the CBI appears to be correct. However, even if it is taken for the sake of argument that the Court can direct investigation by the CBI, it has to be seen as to whether it could be done. In Jayant Vitamins Ltd. (M/s.) v. Chaitanya Kumar and another( 1992 JLJ 569 ), the Apex Court held that further investigation for an offence is permissible. It is statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government. The investigation should not be interfered with by the Court in absence of compelling and justifiable reasons. It has also been held in this case that further investigation is legally permissible under section 173 (8) CrPC. In Pannalal v. Dr. Veer Bhan ( 1992 JLJ 327 ), a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of section 173 (8) CrPC and held that where challan had been filed after completion of investigation, very strong grounds are required to order re-investigation. While considering the question involved therein, reference was made to Ramlal v. State (Delhi Admn.) ( AIR 1979 SC 1791 ) and Rishbud v. The State of Delhi [1965 (I) SCR 1150]. The other authority referred to is Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi (Admn.) ( AIR 1988 SC 1323 ). After going through all these authorities the Court took the above view. 8. Thus, it is clear that there must exist strong grounds for directing reinvestigation after the submission of charge-sheet. Here in the case in hand, not only the charge-sheet was submitted, but the learned Magistrate had also committed the case after taking cognizance to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing parties framed charges and the case was fixed for admission or denial of the documents under section 294 CrPC as well as for submission of trial programme. At this stage, an application purporting to be under section 173 (8) was moved. At this stage, an application purporting to be under section 173 (8) was moved. Learned Sessions Judge has pointed out in paragraph 15 of its judgment that the matter related to the political pressure and four points were raised before the Court. Firstly, the instrument with which the offence was committed was not seized. Secondly, clothes of the deceased were not taken into custody. Thirdly, no investigation was made with respect to the vehicle and ,fourthly the investigation was insufficient on account of political pressure. On a careful perusal of the entire order passed by the learned Sessions Judge it appears that the learned Court was swayed by certain factors, which, according to the learned Court, go to show that there was political pressure as a result of which investigation was not properly conducted. At this stage, it is important to reiterate that after considering the entire material and hearing the parties, the Court concluded that there were ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence and hence it had framed charges against the accused persons. There is nothing in the order framing charges, to show that the Court found any deficiency in the investigation. If we go through the material on record we find that magizine was taken into custody. Vehicle too was taken into custody and as such the two grounds mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge do not appear to be correct, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. The grounds mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge for directing the reinvestigation do not appear to me to be such which may be termed as compelling and very strong grounds for a direction for reinvestigation at that stage. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Sessions Judge did not exercise jurisdiction properly in directing reinvestigation in the case. I may observe that even if there is a deficiency in the investigation it does not affect the merits of the case and if there is clinching evidence on record a conviction can be based upon such evidence. The accused cannot be acquitted merely because of faulty investigation, if any. 9. In this view of the matter, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and conclude that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The accused cannot be acquitted merely because of faulty investigation, if any. 9. In this view of the matter, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and conclude that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.