1. In this Criminal Revision, the petitioner, accused, has called in question order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, in case titled State v. Shri Bashir Ahmad Malik, on the grounds taken therein. 2. It appears that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner which set the CBI authorities in motion. After conducting investigation, they closed the case as not proved and, in terms of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), submitted the report before the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. 3. The Trial Court, after examining the report, did not agree with the report and directed re-investigation of the matter. While doing so, the court also passed remarks against the investigating agency. The last three paragraphs of the impugned order dated 27.12.2003 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "If the investigating agency would have peeped deep into what the above passages connote then " the discharge of the accused and the closure of the case would not have been prayed for but the head of the accused would have been put in the noose for the findings of the investigating officer themselves suggest that in a case otherwise proved by him, he has by a strange irony sought its closure. Here a few lines of an article under the head `Tightening nuts' authored by Mr. Joginder Singh required to be reproduced and, they are, as under: The blue-blooded crooks are ruling the roost without any fear of nemesis catching up with them. The result is that crookedness is becoming more wide spread and unchecked in the country. Should this happen at the hands of the premier, investigating agency is mind boggling. To remain silent on what all, who has eyes to see, reads in the passages supra will be to defend corruption. The case against the accused on whom the complainant points his finger and others found privy to the commission of crime should be investigated into thoroughly, afresh, as it does not qualify for closure. A copy of this order shall be sent to Director, C.B.I, for his perusal as that he keeps himself abreast of how some of the functionaries of CBI deal with sensitive matters which may have wide spread ramifications. A copy of this order shall be sent to Director, C.B.I, for his perusal as that he keeps himself abreast of how some of the functionaries of CBI deal with sensitive matters which may have wide spread ramifications. Particularly in this case one feels that Abdul Rasheed Malik seems to have very mysteriously succeeded in getting an almost clean chit at the hands of Shri S. S. Lakra, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SIC, 1: New Delhi, who in about eight pages builds almost an impregnable case against Abdul Rashid Malik somehow softens down at page 9 for reason best known to him. A word to the wise is enough. The record of the instant case alongwith this order made today shall be sent to the concerned authorities of CBI for re-investigation of the case as ordered above. An index of the file shall be maintained by this Court which shall be consigned to record after its due completion." 4. Mr. Qayoom argued that the trial Court has no power to direct re-investigation of the case and the accused was required to be given an opportunity of hearing before making such an order. Learned counsels for the respondents have not been able to rebut the submission made at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, have carefully perused the record of the trial Court and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar by learned counsel for the parties. I am not convinced with the submissions made by Mr. M. A. Qayoom, the same having no force for the following reasons. 6. Where final report is submitted as not proved, if the Court is inclined to accept the report it has to issue notice to the informant and then has to pass the order. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgments of the apex Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285 , and Chittaranjan Mirdha v. Dulal Ghosh, 2009 AIR SCW 3873. In Chittaranjan Mirdha v. Dulal Ghosh, (supra), the apex court has observed and held as under: "12. Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. In Chittaranjan Mirdha v. Dulal Ghosh, (supra), the apex court has observed and held as under: "12. Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. This Court further held that the position is different so far as an 7 injured person or a relative of the deceased, who is not an informant, is concerned. They are not entitled to any notice. This Court felt that the question relating to issue of notice and grant of opportunity as afore- described was of general importance and directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the High Courts in all the States so that the High Courts in their turn may circulate the same among the Magistrates within their respective jurisdictions." 7. Now the first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the accused was to be heard? The apex Court in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2012 AIR SCW 3323 at paragraph 18 of the judgment has held as under: 18. Once the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C, a police officer is bound to file a report before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C, upon which the Magistrate can proceed to try the offence, if the same were triable by such Court or commit the case to the Court of Sessions. It is significant to note that the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. open with non-obstante language that nothing in the provisions of Section 173(1) to 173(7) 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. Thus, under Section 173(8), where charge-sheet has been filed, that Court also enjoys the jurisdiction to direct further investigation into the offence. {Ref., Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [ (2001) 7 SCC 536 ]}. This power cannot have any inhibition including such requirement as being obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. It has been held in Shri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. {Ref., Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [ (2001) 7 SCC 536 ]}. This power cannot have any inhibition including such requirement as being obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. It has been held in Shri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [JT 1999 (4) SC 537] that the casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard." 8. Thus, it is the beaten law of the land that the trial court has not to hear the accused before making an order. 9. Now, second question which arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was having the power to direct re-investigation of the case? The apex Court in series of cases has held that the Magistrates and trial Court can direct further investigation and not re-investigation. My view is fortified by judgements of the apex Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285 , and Ramachandran v. R. Udaykumar, 2008 AIR SCW 5469. It will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgement in Ramachandran v, R. Udaykumar, which reads hereunder: "6. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or re-investigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chondroseklzar v. State of Kerala and Ors. ( 1998 (5) SCC 223 ). It was, inter alia, observed as follows: `24. The dictionary meaning of `further' (when used as an adjective) is `additional; more; supplemental.' `Further' investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a `further' report of reports - and not fresh reports regarding the `further' evidence obtained during such investigation.' 7. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a `further' report of reports - and not fresh reports regarding the `further' evidence obtained during such investigation.' 7. In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the High Court for re-investigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173 (8) of the Code. The same can be done by the CB (CID) as directed by the High Court." 10. It emerges from the aforesaid reproduction that the re-investigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. However, trial Court can direct further investigation instead of re-investigation or fresh investigation. 11. In light of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly passed the observations made in the impugned order, but should have directed further investigation instead of re-investigation. Accordingly, investigating agency is directed to conduct further investigation in terms of the directions contained in the impugned order. The investigation shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months positively, which period shall begin from the date copy of this order is made available to the investigating agency. 12. Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected Cr.M.P. Interim direction shall stand vacated. 13. The Registry to remit the record to the trial Court forthwith along with a copy of this order.