JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J. This application under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed for quashing and or setting aside the written order dated 19.10.96 of the Investigating Officer of the CBI of Crime No. RCI(S)/95 Annexure "A" to the application corresponding to G.R. No. 969/96 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 9th Court Calcutta, directing the petitioners to produce the Books of accounts of the petitioners an its all wings for the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, as it has been made to appear to him that the production of the document/the article (mentioned) is necessary or desirable for the purpose of the investigation now being made into the abovementioned offence before him, on 1.11.96 at the place and time mentioned therein. The relevant case is commonly known as Purulia Arms dropping case. 2. By order dated 20.11.96 of this court on the said application, the matter has been directed to be heard as a 'Contested application' and the operation of the notice (said written order) has been stayed. 3. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenging the said notice/written order (Annexure "A") submitted that such notice cannot be issued by a police officer under s. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the charge-sheet has already been filed in respect of the case mentioned in the notice and cognizance has already been taken of the case and the charge has also been framed and the trial started and accordingly the investigation agency has no authority to issue such notice and since the case is pending before the court the only course open to the Investigating Agency was to approach the trial court for issuing search warrant and accordingly the said notice is absolutely unauthorised and illegal and is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. In support of his submissions he cited the decision reported in 1965 Cr.L.J. Vol. 2 p 256 (State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi). 4. Mr. Basu further contended that there being no order of court of permission for further investigation the impugned notice is absolutely unauthorised and contrary to the provisions of law and as such it is liable to be set aside. 5. Drawing the attention of the court to the copy of the notice itself which has been annexed as annexure-'A' to the application, Mr. 5. Drawing the attention of the court to the copy of the notice itself which has been annexed as annexure-'A' to the application, Mr. Basu submitted that there is no indication in the said notice regarding the offence committed by the petitioners or being investigated by the authority issuing the notice besides the notice being bad in law for vagueness and non-disclosure of the reasons therein for the necessity or desirability for production of those documents and as such the notice is absolutely illegal and cannot be acted upon in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Basu further submitted that the impugned notice being in contravention of the provisions of law, the petitioners are protected against the said notice under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Basu also drew the attention of this court to Annexure 'B' to this said application which is a copy of the reply of the petitioners to the said notice requesting 20 days’ time for reply to the said notice. 8. In support of his submission that the police should seek formal permission from court to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light, a decision reported in 1979 Cr.L.J. Page 1346 (Ramlal Narang vs. Delhi Administration) is cited and attention is drawn to paragraph No. 21 at page 1357 wherein the apex court observed as follows : "We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance had been taken by the court of any offence. We think that in the interests of the independence of the magistracy and the Judiciary; in the interests of purity of the administration of Criminal Justice and in the interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with at 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." 9. Mr. Mr. Basu also submitted that even in case of issue of search warrant by court, the court should state the reasons therefor and as such the impugned notice without any reason for issuing the same is illegal and is liable to be set aside in the interest of Justice and he cited the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 185 (para 17) (V.S. Kuttam Pillai vs. Ramkrishnan and Another) in support of his submission. 10. Mr. Basu also submitted that the requirement of giving reasons in the impugned notice not being dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising Judicial or quasi-Judicial functions as in this case is required to record the reasons for its decision and as such the impugned notice is liable to be struck down by this court for non-mentioning of the reasons therein and cited the decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India) (Head note 'A') in support of his submission. 11. Mr. Amit Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submitted with reference to the records that the charge-sheet in the aforesaid case has been filed on 20.3.96 and prayer for further investigation was made before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta which was granted by the learned C.M.M. Calcutta and supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 5.9.96 and thereafter the impugned notice was issued on 19.10.96. 12. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that the petitioners are not accused in the aforesaid case and the trial in that case has already started against the accused persons placed in the said trial and as such the protection under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution is not available to the petitioners and he cited the decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 (para 14) in support of his submission. 13. He also submitted that further investigation has legal sanction under s. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he cited the decision reported in 1995 SCC (Cr.) page 1 (State of Rajasthan vs. Aruna Devi and others), 1995 SCC (Cr.) page 16, and AIR 1979 SC 1971 in support of his submission. 14. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the apex court there is no illegality in issuing the notice (Annexure "A" to the application) and as such the application is liable to be dismissed and the interim order should be vacated. 15. 14. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the apex court there is no illegality in issuing the notice (Annexure "A" to the application) and as such the application is liable to be dismissed and the interim order should be vacated. 15. Mr. Biswanath Sanyal, Learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae, submitted that on the analogy and basing upon the ratio of the decision in Ramlal Narang's case (supra) if the CBI on some fresh information and materials intended further investigation for unearthing much more serious offences and conspiracy on some wider canvas in a case of such serious nature threatening the internal security of our country having wide and extensive ramification and as a first step towards such investigation, issued notice under s. 91 Cr.P.C. for production for certain Account books, there cannot be any legal bar, firstly because CBI had not become officio after filing charge-sheet and supplemental charge-sheet in respect of the case which is of such extra-ordinary serious magnitude and accordingly it cannot be said that no further investigation is pending. 16. Mr. Sanyal further submitted that the said decision envisages that CBI may file charge-sheet before a court of Magistrate on completion of further investigation if it transpires on further investigation that CBI has unearthed much more serious materials having a wider impact relating to conspiracy as deep knit conspiracy involving foreigners and there is no bar in law in Magistrate's taking cognizance as in Ramlal's case the Learned Magistrate of Delhi court took cognizance on fresh charge-sheet. 17. Regarding the satisfaction for issue of the notice namely "desirable or necessary" Mr. Sanyal submitted that it is practically of no serious consequence because CBI after satisfying itself that the documents and accounts books mentioned in the notice are essential materials for further investigation even when the case is pending before the Session's court, issued the notice and the CBI made such requisition which by itself shows the gravity and seriousness of this offence which the CBI is trying to unearth to bring the accused persons and gives clear indication of the application of mind of CBI to show its satisfaction. 18. 18. After considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsels and the materials on record I am of the view that under the provisions of s. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure further investigation is not precluded in respect of an offence after a report under sub-s. (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and there is no express or implied provision for permission from court for such further investigation. 19. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners are not accused in the trial of the case which has already commenced and the charge-sheet had been filed in that case after completion of investigation in respect of the persons already placed on trial but some of the accused persons in connection with that case are still absconding and the case has been filed in respect of those absconding accused persons and as such the investigation has still been continuing in respect of the absconding accused persons. The record shows extreme seriousness and gravity of the case involving internal security of the country having wide ramifications. The impugned notice although show some technical defect of vagueness, does not prejudice the petitioners in any way as the petitioners have already requested for time for reply to the said notice. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court is not inclined to quash the impugned notice. 21. The application is therefore disposed of on contest as a contested application and the interim order passed by this court on the application is vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 22. This court records its high appreciation of the assistance given by Mr. Biswa Nath Sanyal, Learned Counsel who assisted this court as amicus curiae in this matter. 23. The application is disposed of as above. Application disposed of.