Judgment : No one appears in support of this revisional application, when the matter is called on. The petitioner in this revisional application is the defacto complainant in the case. Aggrieved by the order dated April 18, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kakdwip, South 24-Paraganas in S.C. Case no. 68(5) of 2010 under Section 302 read with Sections 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting her prayer for further investigation, this revisional application has been filed. The case of the petitioner is that the investigation in the instant case was not conducted in proper manner and that important records were missing from the trial court. The petitioner approached this court earlier in C.R.R. 761 of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated April 6, 2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the point relating to the missing of vital documents before the learned trial judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial judge, which was kept with the record by order dated February 27, 2012. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved this court in C.R.R. 1457 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated January 31, 2013 directing the learned trial judge to dispose of the application within a month. The learned trial judge, by order dated April 18, 2013, has dismissed the application praying for reinvestigation of the case filed on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the application dated February 27, 2012 shows that the petitioner had canvassed before the trial court that vital documents were missing from the trial court’s records. He had also prayed for copies of the said documents. The trial court in the impugned order dated April 18, 2013 does not appear to have adverted to the said issue at all and had merely rejected the prayer for re-investigation of the case. Having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Judge in the trial court ought to have applied his mind to the issues raised by the defacto complainant relating to absence of relevant documents from the records of the case. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly specifies the documents which must accompany the charge sheet. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly specifies the documents which must accompany the charge sheet. Such documents are most vital for the progress of the trial and the trial court ought to have decided the issue raised by the petitioner as to whether the vital documents were present in the records or not. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated April 18, 2013 passed by the learned trial judge and direct the trial court to reconsider the application dated February 27, 2012 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a month from the date of communication of this order. I, however, make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion with regard to the necessity of further/re-investigation of the case. With the aforesaid observations, the revisional application is disposed of. Registry is direct to communicate this order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kakdwip, South 24-Paraganas, for necessary compliance.