Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE question that cropped up in the instant revision is as to whether a supplementary charge sheet can be filed under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. even without recording further evidence oral or documentary. ( 2 ) THIS question emerges in the circumstances set out below: (i) An FIR came to be lodged by the informant Shamsuddin on October 26, 1990 against co-accused Munna Khan alongwith Latoor and Narayan. Police Station Indergarh commenced investigation and submitted charge sheet only against the accused Munna Khan. It was kept pending against Latoor and Narayan. Therefore the Investigating Officer has recorded titamba statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. of the witnesses after the period of three years and laid charge sheet against the accused petitioners on May 17, 1996. (ii) The learned Trial Court vide its order dated April 10, 1997, framed charge under Section 302/34, I. P. C. against the accused-petitioners. Against this order that the present action for filing this criminal revision has been resorted to by them. ( 3 ) MR. Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that no charge-sheet could have been laid against the accused petitioners. Thus the order framing charge deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on Kunjalata Dei v. State of Orissa Rajinder Prasad Pappu v. State Resham Lal Yadav and Others v. State of Bihar and S. Ramapandian v. State. On the other hand. Mr. M. L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. ( 5 ) THE provisions contained in Section 173 (8 ). Cr. P. C. are as follows: 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-incharge of the police station obtains further evidence oral or documentary, he shall for ward 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 ). A perusal of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that it empowers the police to make further investigation in respect of the offence after submission of the charge-sheet and under this provision a supplementary charge sheet can be submitted if on further investigation fresh evidence is available. In the case on hand the question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances supplementary charge sheet can be submitted by the police on the basis of titamba bayant. ( 6 ) THE Police Station. Indergarh could not have filed charge sheet against the accused-petitioners as the statements of the prosecution witnesses were already recorded. The supplementary charge sheet has been filed by the Police Station Indergarh without further investigation and without obtaining any further evidence against the accused-petitioner. Under the provisions of Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. the police is not precluded from investigating further into the case in respect of the offence after a report under Subsection (2) of Section 173 has been forwarded to the Magistrate if the officer incharge obtains further evidence oral or documentary he shall for. Ward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of Subsections. (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 ). Therefore, supplementary charge sheet cannot be submitted without making further investigation and without obtaining further evidence oral or documentary in respect of an offence. ( 7 ) I am of the considered view that on the basis of titamba statements recorded after three years of the prosecution witnesses on the basis of which charge sheet was land against co-accused Munna Khan. cannot be treated as further evidence oral or documentary in respect of the alleged offence. As the supplementary charge sheet has been filed without making further investigation and without obtaining further evidence oral or documentary in respect of alleged offence, it was not permissible and no charge could have been framed against the accused-petitioners. ( 8 ) RESULTANTLY, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated April 1 0, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bundi stands set aside and the accused petitioners stand discharged from the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. There record of the case be sent back of forthwith. ( 8 ) RESULTANTLY, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated April 1 0, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bundi stands set aside and the accused petitioners stand discharged from the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. There record of the case be sent back of forthwith. Revision allowed. .