P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Istakuddin Mondal alias Haradhan Mondal, petitioner herein, seeking to set aside the order dated 04-07-2000 passed by Sri D. Sarkar, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Suri, Birbhum whereby the petitioner's prayer for further investigation in connection with Mohammadbazar P. S. Case No. 53/99 dated 19-6-1999 (G. R. Case No. 429/99) was rejected alleging mainly that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration the materials produced before him by the petitioner which clearly reveal that further investigation of this case should be made by the Investigating Agency but the learned Magistrate having failed to take into consideration those materials and consequent rejection of the prayer will certainly be taken as an attempt by the investigating agency to save the skin of the actual offender from the punishment, required in connection with this case. Since investigating agency failed to examine the important witness and failed to collect vital materials in the connected matter and since the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected it will suggest unmistakably that an extremely serious offence has been simplified to such an extent that the offenders are out to get away from this case with no punishment or minimum punishment. Hence, this prayer. ( 2 ) THIS prayer, however, has been opposed by the private parties alleging that the result of the investigation in the connected matter was made known to the petitioner being complainant of this case and the petitioner at the initial stage has not taken that plea before the concerned Court that they were not informed of the result of the investigation and from the investigation, as conducted in the concerned case, it could not also be said that there has been perfunctory investigation. ( 3 ) FROM the side of the State, however, it has been contended that in appropriate case, the Court has every right to order for further investigation. ( 4 ) I have heard the rival contentions of the parties at length. ( 3 ) FROM the side of the State, however, it has been contended that in appropriate case, the Court has every right to order for further investigation. ( 4 ) I have heard the rival contentions of the parties at length. ( 5 ) NOW, hearing the rival contentions of the parties in the connected matter, I find that a short but interesting question has come up for consideration of this Court: whether or not, on a prayer of the defacto complainant the Court can direct further investigation by the police when charge sheet has already been laid before the Court and cognizance has already been taken by the concerned Court in the connected matter. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before me that the power of the police to conduct further investigation after laying final report is recognized under section 173 (8) of Cr PC even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted. It is open to the police to conduct further investigation. ( 7 ) IT has further been contended by him that ordinarily right and duty of the police would end with the submission of a report under section 173 (1) of Cr PC, upon receipt of which it was up to the Magistrate either to take or not to take cognizance of the offence. But in the Code itself, there is no express provision prohibiting the police from launching upon an investigation into the fresh facts coming to light after the submission of the report under section 173 (1) or after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence and as such certainly the police could exercise its right to further investigate as often it was found necessary when fresh information came to light. In such changed situation, however, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court for seeking its formal permission to make further investigation although in terms of section 173 (8) of the Cr PC, as it now stands, it is not at all necessary. In such changed situation, however, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court for seeking its formal permission to make further investigation although in terms of section 173 (8) of the Cr PC, as it now stands, it is not at all necessary. ( 8 ) IN support of his contention reliance has been placed by them on some decisions reported in 1979 0 SCC (Cri) 479 in the case Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047 in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj, 2002 0 SCC (Cri) 950 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. S. Pai and Anr. , 2003 SCC (Cri) 1054 in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Ramdeo and Ors. , and 1997 SCC (Cri) 1112 in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah and Ors. ( 9 ) IN refuting the aforesaid contention, it has been contended on behalf of the private opposite party that in terms of section 173 of Cr PC, it is open to the Magistrate either to direct further investigation or to direct an investigation as contemplated under section 159 but where no final report has been submitted, but charge sheet has been submitted, the learned Magistrate has no power either to direct further investigation or to direct an enquiry. ( 10 ) IN support of this contention reliance has been placed by them on the decisions reported in 1996 0 Crlj 875 in the case of Sailendra Nath Roy v. State of West Bengal, 1998 0 Crlj 3502 in the case of Prithwis Kumar Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , and 1997 0 Crlj 779 in the case of Randhir Singh Rana v. The State (Delhi Administration ). ( 11 ) I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and I have also looked into the aforesaid decisions, cited at the bar with meticulous care. ( 12 ) IN 1979 0 SCC (Cri) 479 (supra) It was held by the apex Court that ?ordinarily, the right and duty of the police would end with the submission of a report under section 173 (1), Cr PC, upon receipt of which it was up to the Magistrate to take or not to take cognizance of the offence. ( 12 ) IN 1979 0 SCC (Cri) 479 (supra) It was held by the apex Court that ?ordinarily, the right and duty of the police would end with the submission of a report under section 173 (1), Cr PC, upon receipt of which it was up to the Magistrate to take or not to take cognizance of the offence. There was no provision in 1898 Code prescribing the procedure to be followed by the police, where, after the submission of a report under section 176 (1) Cr PC and after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, fresh facts came to light which required further investigation. There was of course, no express provision prohibiting the police from launching upon an investigation into the fresh facts coming to light after the submission of the report under section 173 (1) or after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence. As we shall presently point out, it was generally thought by many High Courts, though doubted by a few, that the police were not barred from further investigation by the circumstance that a report under section 173 (1) had already been submitted and a Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence. The Law Commission in its 41st report recognized the position and recommended that the right of the police to make further investigation should be statutorily affirmed? and again the Apex Court after discussing of the report of the Law Commission and other decisions of different High Courts ultimately came to the following conclusion: ?as observed by us earlier, there was no provision in the Cr PC, 1898 which expressly or by necessary implication, barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. Neither section 173 nor section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon police report submitted under section 173 of 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon police report submitted under section 173 of 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make further investigation, the police could express their regard and respects for the Court by seeking its formal permissions to make further investigation?. ( 13 ) IN 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047 (supra) it was held by the apex Court that ?power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognized under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration ). The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation. ( 14 ) IN such a situation the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation. ( 15 ) IN the decision reported in 1997 0 Crlj 779 (supra) cited on behalf of the opposite parties, it was held by the Apex Court that ?the decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi (1995)1 SCC 1 , to which our attention was invited by Sri Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, also is not helpful, because in that case the power of the police to make further investigation after cognizance was taken by the Magistrate had come up for examination. The point involved in present appeal, however, is relatable not to the power of the Police to make further investigation but of the Magistrate to order for such investigation. ( 16 ) THE aforesaid being the legal position as discernible from the various decisions of this Court and some of the High Courts, we would agree, as presently advised, with Shri Vasdev that within the gray area to which we have referred the Magistrate of his own cannot order for further investigation. As in the present case the learned Magistrate had done so, we set aside his order and direct him to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of materials already on record. This will be subject to the caveat that even if the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which could even end in submission of either fresh charge sheet? and as such this decision, however, does not help us directly in the connected matter as in the present matter, the question involved is quite otherwise. ( 17 ) THE decision cited on behalf of the opposite party reported in 1998 Cr LJ 3052 (supra) wherein it was held by the single Bench of High Court that ?in my view the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence, cannot pass an order for further investigation under section 173 (8) of Cr PC, unless the police makes an application praying for formal sanction of the Court for further investigation. I am also of the opinion that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence under the provisions of the Cr PC cannot direct CBI under section 173 (8) of Cr PC to further investigate into the matter by passing the State Police? - however, in my opinion, does not present any difficulty to the petitioners to get the desired relief in the instant matter. - however, in my opinion, does not present any difficulty to the petitioners to get the desired relief in the instant matter. But, the decision of single Bench of this Court reported in 1996 0 Crlj 875 (supra) wherein it was held that ?in other words when a final report is submitted by the Police under section 173 it is open to the Magistrate either to direct further investigation or to direct enquiry as contemplated under section 159 but where no final report has been submitted but charge sheet has been submitted, the learned Magistrate has no power either to direct further investigation or to direct an enquiry? cannot at all be accepted as a general proposition in view of the authoritative pronouncement as reflected in the decision of the Apex Court, cited above from the side of the petitioners. ( 18 ) SO, when broadly it has been accepted by the Apex Court that power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognized by section 173 (8) of Cr PC. Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation and in such a situation the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. In a situation like this it may be that the Court on its own cannot pass such an order but being approached either by the Investigation Agency or by any other aggrieved person, the Court has certainly powers to pass an order directing further investigation under section 173 (8) of Cr PC even when the Court has taken cognizance for any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted. ( 19 ) SO, that being the position, I find that in passing the impugned order learned Magistrate has committed gross illegalities in refusing the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner and in consequence thereof, I set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the prayer of the petitioner praying for further investigation in connection with Mohammadbazar P. S. case No. 53 of 1999 dated 19-06-99 within a period of one month from the date of the communication of this order in accordance with law and also in the light of the observations made by this Court hereinbefore and then to proceed in the connected matter in accordance with law with utmost expedition. In the result, the revisional application succeeds. Interim orders, if there be any, stand vacated. Urgent certified copy of the criminal section, if applied for, be given to the parties with utmost expedition. Application succeeds