JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 679 of 2003 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for further investigation of the case. 2. The Petitioner is the informant in G.R. Case No. 679 of 2003 pending the Court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar. In that case after investigation, the police authority submitted charge-sheet under Sections 451, 427, 323/34, Indian Penal Code arraying the present Opp. Parties No. 2 to 4 as accused persons. The Petitioner made a prayer u/s 173 Sub-section (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. to the SDJM, Bhubaneswar to direct further investigation into the case on the plea that the investigating authorities have deliberately omitted the graver offences alleged and have submitted final form for minor boilable offences only. After hearing the parties on the petition, the learned SDJM by order dated 24.9.2003 rejected the prayer for further investigation. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed by the Petitioner. 3. Mr. P.K. Ray, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although there was allegation in the FIR for graver offences, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet for minor offences without proper investigation and so it is necessary to direct further investigation into the case. He submits that SDJM, Bhubaneswar, being the Court of cognizance, is empowered u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. to direct further investigation of the case. According to him, by not directing further investigation of the case, the SDJM, Bhubaneswar committed legal error. 4. Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State Opp. Party No. 1 on the other hand, submits that after submission of the final form, the I.O. may undertake further investigation after obtaining permission from the concerned Magistrate, but the Magistrate on his own cannot direct the I.O. to under take further investigation or to submit charge-sheet for more or graver offences. He submits that when the police authorities have submitted the final form in the case after thorough investigation, further investigation into the case is unwarranted. In substance, he supports the impugned order. 5. In view of rival contentions, the following two points required examination: 1. Whether after submission of the charge-sheet the Magistrate can direct further investigation; and 2. Whether the facts and circumstances of the present case demand any further investigation. In substance, he supports the impugned order. 5. In view of rival contentions, the following two points required examination: 1. Whether after submission of the charge-sheet the Magistrate can direct further investigation; and 2. Whether the facts and circumstances of the present case demand any further investigation. Sub-section (1) Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure. says that every investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Sub-section (2) of that Section says that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government. Sub-section (8) says 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 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 as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. thus contemplates power of police to conduct further investigation even after laying final report. It does not specifically say that the Magistrate taking cognizance can direct further investigation to unearth more materials or to submit final form for graver offences. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that after submission of the final form, the informant can file a protest petition and on such petition the Magistrate can direct further investigation u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention he cites the case of Surendra Sahoo and Others Vs. The State of Orissa, and the case of State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and Ors. (1995) 8 OCR (SC) 267. In Surendra Sahoo's case (supra) it was observed that after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, the Investigating Officer is not precluded from making further investigation and making report on additional facts and the Magistrate is also not precluded from directing further investigation, if necessary, on the asking of the investigating officer. (1995) 8 OCR (SC) 267. In Surendra Sahoo's case (supra) it was observed that after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, the Investigating Officer is not precluded from making further investigation and making report on additional facts and the Magistrate is also not precluded from directing further investigation, if necessary, on the asking of the investigating officer. It was, however, made clear that neither the prosecution i.e., the informant nor the accused can claim as a matter of right a direction from the Court commanding further investigation by the Investigating Officer u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. after charge-sheet has been filed after investigation. In Aruna Devi's case (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. the Magistrate after accepting the final report of the police can take cognizance of the offence, if on further investigation fresh materials have come to light and a further report is filed and he is satisfied in that regard. The ruling given in the above noted case thus clarify that the investigating agency is not precluded from making further investigation if additional facts and materials come to light and to submit further report to the Magistrate for taking cognizance, but neither the Magistrate can direct further investigation on the asking of the informant or the accused nor can he direct further investigation on his own to unearth the evidence for graver offences. 7. In the present case the I.O. during investigation examined the witnesses, the victim, and the informant and thereafter he submitted the final form u/s 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the materials available in the case diary, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 457, 427, 323/34, Indian Penal Code. If the materials available in the case diary do constitute prima facie case for graver offences, there is no bar for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance for those graver offences also. But, he has certainly no scope to direct further investigation on the prayer of the Petitioner. 8. The impugned order rejecting the prayer for further investigation, therefore, does not call for any interference. However, the remark of the learned SDJM in the order that the prosecution is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The impugned order rejecting the prayer for further investigation, therefore, does not call for any interference. However, the remark of the learned SDJM in the order that the prosecution is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. at appropriate stage of the proceeding is misconceived as Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. speaks about the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence and not for addition of offence. The said observation shall thus stand waived. 9. In the result, the revision is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed