Judgment : 1. This revision is preferred by A1 out of three accused, challenging the order of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dated 29.12.2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2333 of 2006 in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking for the relief of discharge for the offence under Sections 120B and 120-B read with 466, 471 and 109 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of this revision are hereunder: 21 The petitioner was a Director of G.K. Alloy Steels Ltd., having its factory at Velayudampalayam within the limits of Avinashi Police Station, Coimbatore. The said Company is engaged in the production and sale of steel castings of various descriptions. The Company is also having High Tension Service Connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). 2.2 On 6.8.2001, at about 4.30 p.m, the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, North Coimbatore inspected the factory premises of the Company and alleged to have found certain defects in the seals of the meter, indicating ampering of the meter and illegal extraction of electricity. A report was preferred before the Avinashi Police Station on 7.8.2001 and a case was registered in Crime No. 507 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC. 2.3 After completion of investigation in the said case, a final report was also filed for the above said offences on 24.10.2002 against five accused including the revision petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 in that case and the 1st accused is the Company. 2.4 In the present case, the revision petitioner has been arrayed as A1 out of three accused and A2 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department and A3 is the Police Head Constable attached to Avinashi Police Station and they have been implicated on the allegation that the original forensic report in respect of the tampering of the meter was substituted by a bogus report. Therefore, the revision petitioner has been implicated along with two other accused for the offence under Sections 120-B and 120-B read with 466, 471 and 109 IPC. Therefore, the revision petitioner has been implicated along with two other accused for the offence under Sections 120-B and 120-B read with 466, 471 and 109 IPC. As against the said criminal proceedings, the revision petitioner has preferred a discharge petition before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for the relief of discharge from the criminal proceedings and the said petition was dismissed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same is under challenge in this revision. 3. Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended on the ground that the charges and allegations relating to the present case is connected with the earlier case in which the petitioner and other accused have been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC. It is further contended that the prosecution is not entitled to register a separate case for the alleged offence as stated above against the revision petitioner as the allegation is mainly relating to alleged substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report in respect of electricity theft case already registered and final report filed and pending on the file of the different Magistrate. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the present offences are to be construed only as a connected offence relating to the earlier case pending for the offence of electricity theft and as such, if any information is received by the investigating agency, the only remedy available for them is to seek for the relief of further investigation by invoking the provision under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of such contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others AIR 2001 SC 2637 : 2001 SCC (Cr) 1048 : (2001) 1 MLJ (Crl) 961. 4. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that, there is no illegality or infirmity in initiating the present criminal proceeding against the revision petitioner who has been implicated as A1 out of three accused for the offences as stated above. 4. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that, there is no illegality or infirmity in initiating the present criminal proceeding against the revision petitioner who has been implicated as A1 out of three accused for the offences as stated above. It is contended that the petitioner has been implicated for different and distinct offences and as such, there is no illegality in initiating separate proceedings on the allegation of substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report. 5. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 29.12.2006. 6. At the outset, it is to be stated that admittedly the revision petitioner along with other accused have been implicated for the offences under Sections 39(1) read with 44(1)(e) of the Indian read with 379 IPC for the alleged theft of electricity in respect of the 1st accused Company namely G.K. Alloy Steels Ltd., for which the revision petitioner being one of the Director of the said Company. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the allegation is mainly based on the substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report in respect of earlier electricity theft case. In view of the same, there is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that any further information revealing commission of any further offences to be construed to be mainly on the basis of the same transaction, pursuant to the same allegation and occurrence took place in the earlier case of electricity theft. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is much force in the contention put forward by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner that if at all the investigating agency is having any further material or any further information disclosing commission of further offences, they have to resort to invoke the provision under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for seeking further investigation. 7. The learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others (supra). The Hon‘ble Apex Court has held in the said decision as hereunder (2001) 1 MLJ (Crl) 961 at p. 969, 970 and 971: “ 19. 7. The learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others (supra). The Hon‘ble Apex Court has held in the said decision as hereunder (2001) 1 MLJ (Crl) 961 at p. 969, 970 and 971: “ 19. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer charge of a Police Station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more than one piece of information is given to a police officer in charge of a Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information report - FIR postulated by Section 154 Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. 20. The scheme of Cr.P.C is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 23. In the case on hand the second FIR was filed in respect of the same incident and on the same facts after about three years. 24. The right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the Court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under 25. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well-recognised limitations. ” 8. Lastly the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the said decision has held hereunder: “ 35. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 of making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 of making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A. Chandrasekhar); in all other respects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside. ” The principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as already pointed that in this case the present allegation of substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report in respect of allegation of tampering of electricity meter is mainly pursuant to the investigation and filing of the final report in the earlier case for the offences under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC, in which the revision petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in the said case. Therefore, it is crystal clear that any further information or material collected by the investigating agency discloses commission of any further offence, the only remedy available to the investigating agency is to seek for the relief of further investigation by invoking the provisions of 173(2) Cr.P.C with the leave of the Court and thereafter to forward the further evidence if any collected and file a further report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, the Investigating agency has failed to do the same and instead resorted to register a separate case and thereafter filed the final report in the instant case. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennal dated 29.12.2006 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2333 of 2006 in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005. Accordingly, the revision petitioner has been discharged from the charges in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 10. M.P. No. 2333 of 2006 in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005. Accordingly, the revision petitioner has been discharged from the charges in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 10. In view of setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on the legal grounus as stated above, it is made clear that the benefit of this order is also to be given to the other co-accused viz., A2 and A3 in view of the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Arokia Thomas v. State of T.N. (2007) 1 SCC (Cr) 140 : (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 599. Accordingly, A2 and A3 are also discharged from the case pending in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005, pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 11. This Court is also constrained to make it clear that it is open to the respondent police to seek the remedy by invoking the provision under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking the relief of further investigation if they desire so.