JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioners (Kalura, Pokharmal and Dalaram) have challenged the order of the learned trial Court whereby it has rejected application filed Under section 227 Criminal Procedure Code and thereupon framed charges against them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 323, 325, 302 read with and alternatively Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 2. In a very narrow compass, facts leading to this revision petition are that Banwarilal lodged a report on 18.1.99 at 8.30 AM at PS Ranoli that while his father (Bhaguram) was sitting on his grocery shop and Phoolchand s/o Banwarilal (all sons of Bhaguram) and Phoolchand s/o Banwarilal were also present there, then they saw Durga Prasad, Bhaguram, Pokhar (all sons of Jhootharam), Ashok S/o Durtraram. Babulal S/o Narayan, Prahlad S/o Devaram, Dolaram S/o Chandraram, Gokal S/o Chandraram, Prabhuram S/o Chandraram, Mohan S/o Amraram, Bholaram S/o Kaluram. Kaluram S/o Ganeshram and 5-6 other persons duly armed with Farsi, Kulhari and lathies, coming from the side of the village, and thereafter they started beating them as a result thereof Bhaguram (father of complainant), Babulal, Dhaklaram, Boduram, Phoolchand sustained a number of injuries on their persons and during the quarrel, his father and persons present there raised hue and cry, upon hearing which Ramkumar S/o Shankerlal, Bhagwana and Moomchand besides other villagers also reached at the spot. On the aforesaid report, police registered criminal case and started investigation. After usual investigations, the police had submitted charges sheet against the accused persons keeping the investigation pending Under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code against present petitioners (Kaluram, Pokkhar & Dalaram), Prahlad and whereafter charge-sheet was filed against Prahlad and Ashok in Juvenile Court, and supplementary charge-sheet against the present revision petitioners on 16.12.99. However, at the time of hearing on framing of the charges, application was filed by the present petitioners under Section 227 Criminal Procedure Code for discharging them but while rejecting the same under the impugned order dated 1.7.2000 the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 325, 302/149 Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions with reference to the record which was called for by this Court on 22.12.2000. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions with reference to the record which was called for by this Court on 22.12.2000. Much emphasis was stressed upon by Shri Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners by strenuously contending that neither initial investigation was conducted against petitioners nor the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against them Under Section 229 Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as except name of Girdhari Lal SHO no other witness was included in the list annexed to the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 16/18.12.1999. Another contention advanced by Shri Garg is that from the date of filing supplementary charge-sheet i.e. 16.12.99 till the charges were framed on 1.7.2000, out of 28 witnesses, 19 witnesses could have already been examined and were cross- examined, therefore, on the basis of material appearing in the evidence recorded during trial no charges could have been framed by the trial Court under the order challenged in this petition. 4. Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code is a part of Chapter XXIII which relates to Evidence in inquiries and trials. Part A of Chapter XXIII Criminal Procedure Code deals with mode of taking and recording evidence and it covers Sections 272 to 283, whereas Part B deals with Commissions for the Examination of Witnesses covering Sections 284 to 299 Criminal Procedure Code A careful perusal of Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code makes it explicitly clear that it empowers the Court competent to try or commit for trial, to examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution and record their depositions in case an accused person is proved to have been absconding or that there has been no immediate prospect of arresting him. It further makes obligatory that if such absconding accused person is arrested then any such deposition of the prosecution witnesses examined in his absence should be given to such accused. Thus Section deals with mode of recording of evidence in absence of accused. It further makes obligatory that if such absconding accused person is arrested then any such deposition of the prosecution witnesses examined in his absence should be given to such accused. Thus Section deals with mode of recording of evidence in absence of accused. Sub-section (2) of Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code also empowers the High Court or the Sessions Judge, in case it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some persons or persons unknown, to direct any Magistrate for holding an inquiry and examining any witness who is able to give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence in case the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence of beyond the limits of India. 5. From the impugned order it is abundantly clear that the prosecution witnesses, who have already been examined in the absence of the present petitioners, are permitted to have been called for cross-examination by the defence counsel against the their examination-in-chief or depositions made while the present petitioners were proved to have been absconding. Thus I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Garg as to Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code, nor I find that the trial Court has committed error of jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in having taken cognizance in view of the supplementary charge-sheet and ordered to frame charges for the offences referred to above. Moreover the present petitioners had been apprehended and arrested on the basis of the material evidence appearing from the first information report and recorded during the investigation by the police for the self same incident out of which supplementary charge-sheets dated 16.12.1999 and 18.12.1999 respectively against Juveniles and present petitioners have arisen and Sessions trial stood pending under Sessions cases No. 4/99 which has been consolidated by the trial Court with present Sessions case No. 12/2000 leading to this revision petition. Thus it cannot be said that the trial Court has taken cognizance on the material appearing in evidence led and recorded during Sessions trial before it.Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. - (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. 2. Thus it cannot be said that the trial Court has taken cognizance on the material appearing in evidence led and recorded during Sessions trial before it.Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. - (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. 2. (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall Forward it to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government : (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was fast given. (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 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)". 6. Sub-section (8) to Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code emphatically contemplates that nothing in Section 173 shall preclude further investigations, meaning thereby further investigation is not precluded rather it is permitted even after submission of charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code Thus after a report under Sub-section (2) to Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code is forwarded to the Magistrate, the investigating agency shall not be precluded for further investigation. I may reiterate observations made by the Apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala ( 1998(5) SCC 223 ) : [1998(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 549 (SC)] , according to which even after submission of police report under Sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, (as is evident from Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code) the police has a right of 'further' investigation under Sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation or 'reinvestigation', because 'further' investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation to be started ab initio wiping out earlier investigation altogether. 7. I am also fortified by aforesaid principles of law because sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a 'further' report or reports and not fresh report or reports - regarding the 'further' evidence obtained during such investigation. Merely because no other witness except name of Girdharilal SHO was included in a list annexed to supplementary charge-sheet, it cannot be inferred that initially the investigation was not conducted or that the investigating agency had to file charge-sheet Under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code under which inquiry by the Magistrate is totally different than in Section 170 or 173 Criminal Procedure Code. 8. I do not also find any merit in the contention of Shri Garg that before forwarding to the Magistrate a 'further' report Under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code, during the course of further investigation fresh evidence should also having been done therefore, there are no material on record to frame any charge against the present petitioners. 9. In my considered opinion, it is totally within the domain of the investigating agency as to what has to be adduced in evidence either collected or adduced during initial investigation or further investigation for forwarding report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code Merely because no further evidence is allegedly obtained during such 'further' investigation before or while forwarding 'further' report under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners or the accused cannot be discharged under section 227 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Even in Nooruddin v. State of Rajasthan ( 1999(1) Crimes 493 ) cited by Shri Garg, this Court held that supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted if on further investigation fresh evidence is available. 10. Even in Nooruddin v. State of Rajasthan ( 1999(1) Crimes 493 ) cited by Shri Garg, this Court held that supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted if on further investigation fresh evidence is available. However, it was a case where Titamba statements recorded after three years of prosecution witnesses, this Court held, cannot be treated as further evidence oral or documentary in respect of alleged offence and thereby no charge could have been framed against the petitioners therein on basis of such supplementary challan. Whereas in view of principles of law laid down in K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala (supra), namely 'that Sub-section (8) clearly evisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a 'further' report or reports, and not fresh report or reports, regarding the 'further' evidence obtained during such investigation', the decision cited by Shri Garg i.e. Nooruddin v. State (supra) stands overrule, besides being distinguishable is not at all applicable to the facts of the case at hand. While interpreting the term 'further' used in Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, the Apex Court in K. Chandra Sekhar v. State of Kerala, [1998(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 549 (SC)] (supra) categorically held that 'further' investigation being the continuation of earlier one and not a fresh one or reinvestigation, does not wipe out earlier investigation altogether with a view to start reinvestigation ab initio. 11. In the instant case the learned trial Court has observed that for self-same incident resulting into lodging of the FIR dated 18.1.1999, on the basis of the statements recorded during earlier investigation, the present accused petitioners were arrested and whereupon further investigation was conducted and the investigating agency forwarded it to the Magistrate a 'further' report under Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code in continuation of and without wiping out earlier investigation altogether, and on the basis of these materials, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners. Hence it cannot be held that materials and documents collected during earlier investigation and produced by the investigating agency keeping investigation 'further' pending against the present petitioners while forwarding to the Magistrate a report under Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code against other accused for self-same incident, should not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court upon forwarding to the Magistrate a 'further' report upon 'further' investigation under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code, or during the course of considering prima facie case for framing the charge either under section 227 or 228 Criminal Procedure Code by their trial Court. 12. From the perusal of the impugned order, I do not find that the learned trial Court has considered the statements recorded by it during trial. As is evident from para 4 of the impugned order it has considered the materials appearing in the F.I.R. and the evidence led during investigation and produced along with the charge-sheet/report under Section 173(2) and (8) Criminal Procedure Code and on the basis of such materials, it has considered and found prima facie case for framing the charges by invoking Section 228 Criminal Procedure Code and rejecting the application of the present petitioners under Section 227 Criminal Procedure Code. 13. Be that as it may, it is trite law that even after framing the charges and recording the evidence, if the Court finds other co-accused named either in the F.I.R. or evidence led during investigation or otherwise, it is open to the Court to exercise its power under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code Thus viewed, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or cause any miscarriage of justice by way of abuse of process of law while framing the charges against the accused petitioners under the impugned order, which is perfectly in order and legal warranting no interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 14. 14. As laid down by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions including in State of MP v. S.B. Johari ( 2000(2) SCC 57 ) : [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 512 (SC)] and State by CBI v. S. Bangarappa (2000(8) AD (SC) 542) on the aspect of discharge under Sections 227 & 228 Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has only to see whether prima facie there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter. In other words, the Apex Court held that exercise of appreciating materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge is wholly unjustified. The Apex Court also held that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court is not required to appreciate evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused and if the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding farther, then a charge has to be framed. In State of MP v. S.B. Johari, [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 512 (SC)] (supra) the High Court instead of considering prima facie case has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the accused could not have been framed and thereby the High Court had quashed the charges, but the Apex Court held that the entire approach of the High Court was illegal and erroneous, and there was no justified reason for it to quash the charge framed by the trial Court. Similarly, in State by CBI v. S. Bangarrapa (supra) the Apex Court reiterated the principles referred to above and observed that time and again it has pointed that at the stage of framing charge the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility, and the limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the Court to proceed further. Even the Apex Court also held that when a trial Court decides to frame charge it is not necessary to record reasons thereof. 15. Even the Apex Court also held that when a trial Court decides to frame charge it is not necessary to record reasons thereof. 15. As a result of the above discussion, I find no force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. The record be sent back to the trial Court.Petition dismissed. *******