Judgment 1. Heard. 2. By the present application, the informant to a case has prayed that once police investigated the matter and submitted a final form in the shape of a charge-sheet without reserving any right to further investigate then the police is duty bound to apprehend the persons who were charge-sheeted and shown as absconders or traceless. The police cannot be permitted to wash their hands off once charge-sheet is submitted showing persons to be absconders. They must take and they must show all earnest steps to procure the presence of the absconders. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police to the effect that there being complaint with regard to the manner of investigation, the investigation was reo-pened after charge-sheet had been submitted. The matter was being enquired into and investigated again. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this counter affidavit clearly indicates that pending further investigation, earnest steps are not required to be taken for apprehending the absconders. 3. On the other hand, an intervention application has been filed on behalf of some of the accused persons who have been charge-sheeted and their cases are pending trial. It is submitted on their behalf that though they are not the absconders against whom appropriate orders are sought from this Court, they have a right to appear and oppose the prayer. I do not propose to decide their locus at this stage which, prima facie, is doubtful. 4. However, with consent of parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Sec.173 of Criminal Procedure Code provides for the result of the investigation. In terns of sub-section (2) thereof on completion of investigation, a final form in the shape of charge-sheet such a charge-sheet has to be filed against every person found guilty or accused in the case, therefore, it is possible and permissible for an interim chargesheet and/or a partial charge-sheet. The effect is that in such an event, the police reserves the right of further investigation. It does not have to seek either the approval or the permission of the trial Court to carry on with the investigation. The question then is what is the import of Sec.173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code which permits further investigation. The effect is that in such an event, the police reserves the right of further investigation. It does not have to seek either the approval or the permission of the trial Court to carry on with the investigation. The question then is what is the import of Sec.173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code which permits further investigation. To my view, it is well established that even in cases where cognizance has been taken pursuant to a charge-sheet submitted in terms of Sec.173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, police is not precluded to investigate the matter. Such a situation arises when instead of a partial or incomplete charge-sheet, a charge-sheet at the total conclusion of investigation is filed but subsequently fresh evidence comes to knowledge or it is found that the evidence collected was improperly collected or that the investigation was wrongly conducted or deficient in any manner, the police would have a duty to further investigate but it must be remembered that having completed investigation once and then left the matter to the trial Court, the power of police is not unfettered in this regard as the Apex Court has held as also this Court on several occasions. The police in such an event has to inform the trial Court and take the permission of the trial Court to further investigate. That is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction to further investigate. The police cannot take upon itself to further investigate and carry it on without informing or taking permission of the Court and then merely submit a fresh charge-sheet which could be at complete variance with the earlier charge-sheet. If such an unfettered power is permitted on the police then matters would not ever come to a finality. The police would keep investigation matters ad infinitum uncontrolled. It is because of these reasons, the Courts have insisted that in cases where charge-sheet as a whole has been submitted without reserving right to carry on investigation then the Courts permission is necessary to further investigate because having submitted a report in terms of Sec.173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, investigation has already been closed. 5. It is because of these reasons, the Courts have insisted that in cases where charge-sheet as a whole has been submitted without reserving right to carry on investigation then the Courts permission is necessary to further investigate because having submitted a report in terms of Sec.173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, investigation has already been closed. 5. In the present case, it is pointed out that after the first charge-sheet was filed without reserving right to reinvestigate or to further investigate and cognizance of offences to be tried were taken no information was given to the court nor permission of the Court sought for, for farther investigation. It is after further investigation had been taken up, an application to have been filed. The Court neither allowed the application nor rejected the same. The Court merely observed that the application was filed after investigation was restarted without Courts permission and such permission could not be granted what is the conseq uence of the result of such an investigation would be seen later. Apparently, no permission having been sought further investigation is being carried on but this is not the approriate stage to finally decide the matter. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, it goes without saying that as of now so far as judicial records are concerned, a charge-sheet is there and some of the persons have been shown to be accused and absconding. The law enshrines duty upon the police to take all effective steps to apprehend the accused persons who have already been charge-sheeted and shown as absconders. It is stated at the bar that an application on behalf of the investigating agency in course of further investigation had been made for issuance of warrants against absconders. The same could not be proceeded as the matter was before the Court of Session in revision where the records have been called for. To my mind, this is no excuse for not taking expeditious steps in the matter. The records can immediately be called as the records are in the same Sessions Division and appropriate directions issued in this regard. The inaction on the part of the investigating agency or the Court clearly indicates the anxiety not to arrest absconders and to delay the arrest as far as possible. This cannot be countenanced by this Court. The records can immediately be called as the records are in the same Sessions Division and appropriate directions issued in this regard. The inaction on the part of the investigating agency or the Court clearly indicates the anxiety not to arrest absconders and to delay the arrest as far as possible. This cannot be countenanced by this Court. If a person is charge-sheet and shown as absconder, it is equally the duty of the investigating agency and the Court to bring the absconder before the Court to stand trial. There cannot be any laxity in the matter. I, therefore, direct that the trial Court will take all expeditious steps in the matter and secure the attendance of the persons shown as absconders and the investigating agency will also be equally responsible in this matter and take all steps necessary in this matter. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.