Judgment S.G. Shah, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the applicant and Mr. A.D. Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 5 and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 2. The petitioner is the complainant. He has filed one complaint on 5.3.2012 before the Vejalpur police station, which is registered as I – FIR No. 55 of 2012 against the present Respondents No. 2 to 5 under Sections 307 and 114 of the IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In such FIR, though the name of four persons are categorically disclosed as accused, it is the say of the petitioner that in fact he has stated in the complaint itself that, in all, there were five persons and fifth person who was driving the car was not known to him and, therefore, his name was not disclosed. At present, the petitioner’s grievance is to the effect that though he has disclosed the name of five persons in his FIR while filing the charge-sheet being No. 125 of 2012 on 28.6.2012, the investigating officer has instead of investigating the details of the fifth person being driver of the vehicle in question, filed charge-sheet only against four persons who were already named as accused by the complainant in the FIR itself. It is alleged by the petitioner that investigating agency has done the investigation half-heartedly and without taking due care of the allegations and evidence during the investigation and filed improper charge-sheet inasmuch as atleast one person has been allowed to let-go and that though weapon was used at the time of incident, since there was fire against him and though presence of bullet was confirmed during the investigation, police has failed to ask for the remand of the concerned accused so as to recover the weapon being material evidence for commission of offence by the respondents – accused. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has, to prove his submission, read-over the FIR wherein it is categorically stated that there were five persons and fire from revolver had taken place against the complainant. Relying upon such categorical disclosure, the petitioner has prayed before the trial Court, by filing an application under Section 173(8) of the CrPC on 8.11.2012, to pass appropriate orders for further investigation. By impugned order dated 8.3.2013, 5th Addl. Relying upon such categorical disclosure, the petitioner has prayed before the trial Court, by filing an application under Section 173(8) of the CrPC on 8.11.2012, to pass appropriate orders for further investigation. By impugned order dated 8.3.2013, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad has dismissed such application being Exh.2 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2012. Such decision was taken by the trial Court after giving an opportunity to both the sides to submit their case and after relying upon the relevant provisions of law and citations that may be referred by the parties. 4. Before discussing the issue on hand, it is to be borne in mind that this is a revision application, where jurisdiction of this Court is to some extent limited so as to verify and scrutinize that whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order or that whether such order has resulted into miscarriage of justice or not, broadly speaking, in absence of any such reason, only because alternate views are possible, generally it is not advisable to exercise such revisional jurisdiction so as to modify and alter the impugned order, more particularly when such orders are not deciding the issue finally i.e. interlocutory order. 5. Coming to the case on hand, if we peruse the impugned order and submissions by the petitioner before us, the fact remains that only because of the decisions by the Apex Court in the well known cases like Best Bakery case between Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 3876 and only because there is provision under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. empowering the Magistrate to order the investigating agency for a further investigation. In other words, such order can be passed only if the facts and circumstances so warrants and if the investigating agency has squarely failed to come to certain conclusion even after some material is available to it. 6. In such issues like further investigation or discharge etc., generally Court should avoid to discuss the prima-facie evidence in the form of charge-sheet i.e. not the tabular document alone, but the police papers along with charge-sheet. 6. In such issues like further investigation or discharge etc., generally Court should avoid to discuss the prima-facie evidence in the form of charge-sheet i.e. not the tabular document alone, but the police papers along with charge-sheet. However, if either of the party is keen and pressing for particular relief, the Court has to scrutinize and verify the available record, so as to come to a particular conclusion and determination that whether further investigation should be directed or not or whether accused should be discharged or not. However, at present, the following discussion is made only for the purpose of deciding the present revision application and thereby such discussion should not prejudice the trial and/or other investigation, if any pending, or yet to be carried out by any competent agency concerning the incident and accusation in this case. 7. With above rider, if we peruse the available record, which is produced by learned advocate Mr. A.D. Shah, as received by the accused from the investigating agency, it transpires that atleast the investigating agency has inquired about the incident and filed charge-sheet against four persons. However, the grievance of the petitioner is for the fifth person referred by him in the complaint and recovery of weapons from the accused. On scrutiny of such police papers, it transpires that though the complainant has referred the fifth person as driver in his complaint, the eye-witnesses viz. Shahnavaz Asratkhan, Faiyaz Rasulbhai Mansuri, Qayumbhai Karimbhai Saiyed and Moinulhaq Maqbulahmed named by the complainant himself, have categorically stated before the investigating officer about the presence of four persons only at the time of commission of offence as alleged in the complaint and FIR. Thus, there is basic contradiction in the version of the complainant and eye-witnesses named by the complainant himself so far as total number of persons in commission of crime. Though the complainant is referring presence of five persons, all four eye-witnesses, have categorically stated that there were four persons at the time of commission of the offence. Though such statements are subject to ocular evidence before the trial Court, at present, prima-facie, there is no reason to disbelieve four eye-witnesses, even if there is a different version in complaint itself. Though such statements are subject to ocular evidence before the trial Court, at present, prima-facie, there is no reason to disbelieve four eye-witnesses, even if there is a different version in complaint itself. To that extent, the action of the investigating agency cannot be questioned upon that why they have not bothered to find out the existence and identity of the fifth person and why they have not arrested the fifth person. Though one may not go behind the mind or heart of anyone, there is substance in the submission of learned advocate Mr. A.D. Shah that presence of 5th accused would include some more charges under some more sections so as to making the charges more susceptible, and that is the only reason for pressing further investigation and filing charge-sheet against five persons. Whatever the reason behind such application by the original complainant, but the fact remains that investigating agency has relied upon the available material before it and when identity of 5th person is not disclosed by the complainant or by any of the eye-witnesses, they have filed charge-sheet against the four persons, whose names are disclosed in the FIR as well as by all eye-witnesses. Suffice it to say that even if there were presence of 5th person, though he was driver of the vehicle only and though his role in commission of crime may need to be investigated and considered, the complainant has yet another chance to implicate such person as an accused, after adducing proper evidence confirming his presence and identity, under Section 319 of the CrPC, so as to add him as additional accused upon availability of sufficient evidence on record. Therefore, only because there is provision for further investigation in the statute and only because in several cases the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed such orders for further investigation, it cannot be said that in all cases, there must be an order for further investigation until complainant is not satisfied. Therefore, only because there is provision for further investigation in the statute and only because in several cases the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed such orders for further investigation, it cannot be said that in all cases, there must be an order for further investigation until complainant is not satisfied. As provided in Sub-section 8 of Section 173, nothing in Section 173 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 and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). 8. The second point for which petitioner has prayed for reinvestigation is pertaining to recovery of weapons that might have been used at the time of incident. As stated herein above, it would not be advisable to discuss all the pros and cons of available material on record, so as to decide particular issue. If it is done, then probably, entire trial would be over at such primary stage. Therefore, I have to restrain from discussing even the prima-facie evidence, which is available on record, though same is discussed with reference to total number of accused. Considering the fact that presence of weapon and its utilization by particular accused would be most material evidence for confirming conviction and sentence and, hence, this issue is required to be decided without discussing the prima-facie evidence. It is sufficient to record that if at all it is proved on record during the trial that investigating agency has failed to investigate and recover the existence of and utilisation of weapon, the complainant can pray for and the trial Court can issue direction for further investigation to that effect. However, at such stage, Court may not guide, advise or direct the investigating agency regarding how to recover particular material, as submitted by the applicant that police should ask for remand of accused and recover the weapon in question without fail. However, at such stage, Court may not guide, advise or direct the investigating agency regarding how to recover particular material, as submitted by the applicant that police should ask for remand of accused and recover the weapon in question without fail. In Popular Muthiah vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 , the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency. It is now well settled that the Court takes cognizance of an offence and not the offender. [See Anil Saran vs. State of Bihar and another (1995) 6 SCC 142 and Popular Muthiah vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 ]. 9. It is the duty of the investigating agency to continue the investigation till all relevant information and material has been brought on record for convicting the accused, but merely because, the investigating agency has filed a charge-sheet without particular material when charge-sheet is otherwise disclosing the commission of offence, in my opinion, it is not the duty of the Court to ask for further investigation so as to confirm particular evidence against particular accused, because the duty of the Court is to find out the truth neither to investigate nor to prove certain things. No doubt law permits the Court to pass appropriate order, once certain information in the form of cogent evidence has been brought on record and when the Court thinks it fit that investigating agency has failed to perform their duty to the extent of proving the offence. It cannot be ignored, as held by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2040 – 2041 of 2012 between Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali, decided on 13.12.2012, that purpose of further investigation is to bring the true facts before the Court even if they are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation, which is commonly described as a supplimentary report. However, this power is vested with the executive and since it is a continuation of previous investigation, the Apex Court in such reported case distinguished the powers regarding “further investigation and re-investigation can be ordered only after scrutinizing of prima-facie evidence whereas, as I have stated earlier, in such a case, it would be not advisable to enter into the total scrutiny of entire evidence on record relieving the issue at the wisdom of the trial Court, which can also suo motu direct the further investigation once particular material has been brought on record. 10. Following paragraphs from the case of Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal, reported at AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 401 makes the entire picture clear: “17. In addition to the above, the decision of this Court in Randhir Singh rana’s case (1997 AIR SCW 356) (Supra) also makes it clear that after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused, a Judicial Magistrate cannot of his own order further investigation in the case, though such an order could be passed on the application of the Investigating Authorities. The view expressd in Randhir Singh Rana’s case (Supra) finds support in the decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI ( (2007) 8 SCC 770 ): (2007 AIR SCW 6112), wherein while considering various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code including Section 173 thereof, this Court held that so long as the charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of Section 173(2), CrPC, investigation remains pending. But, even the filing of a charge-sheet did not preclude an Investigating Officer from carrying on further investigation in terms of Section 173(8), CrPC. It was also observed that the power of the Investigating Officer to make a prayer for conducting further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code is not taken away only because a charge-sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) and a further investigation is permissible even if cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. 18. Although, the decision in Dinesh Dalmia’s case (supra) was rendered in the context of the applicability of Section 167(2) and the proviso thereto, when a charge-sheet has not been filed, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 173(8) in the said decision is relevant in the facts of this case also. 19. 18. Although, the decision in Dinesh Dalmia’s case (supra) was rendered in the context of the applicability of Section 167(2) and the proviso thereto, when a charge-sheet has not been filed, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 173(8) in the said decision is relevant in the facts of this case also. 19. What emerges from the above-mentioned decisions of this Court is that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2), CrPC and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the Investigating Authorities permit further investigation under Section 173(8). The Magistrate cannot suo motu direct a further investigation under Section 173(8), CrPC or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code. 20. In the instant case, the Investigating Authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de facto complainant under Section 173(8), was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to re-investigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a re-investigation on the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto complainant. 21. Since no application had been made by the Investigating Authorities for conducting further investigation as permitted under Section 173(8), CrPC, the other course of action open to the Magistrate as indicated by the High Court was to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code at the stage of trial. 22. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court since it will always be available to the Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 if any material is disclosed during the examination of the witnesses during the trial.” 11. Recently, in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003 between Dharampal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., the full bench of the Apex Court has considered several issued referred to it in view of conflict decision in the case of Kishori Singh & Ors. Recently, in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003 between Dharampal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., the full bench of the Apex Court has considered several issued referred to it in view of conflict decision in the case of Kishori Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2004)13 SCC 11 and Rajendra Prasad vs. Bashir & Ors. reported in (2001)8 SCC 522 read with SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Ors. reported in (2001)6 SCC 670 , regarding powers of the Sessions Court with reference to Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the full bench of the Apex Court has confirmed that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders, whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record, even without recording evidence, upon committal under Section 209, the Sessions Judge may summon those persons shown in column No. 2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein. The Apex Court has also confirmed that Sessions Court has not to wait till the stage, under Section 319 of the CrPC, before proceeding against the persons against whom the prima-facie case was made out from the materials contained in the case papers sent by the learned Magistrate while committing the case to the Court of Sessions. It is further confirmed that Sessions Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him. 12. Thus, now it is certain that once charge-sheet is filed by the investigating agency, the Court has to initially proceed with the case relying upon the charge-sheet and police paper, once cognizance is taken by the Court, but Court can summon any witness at any time to disclose certain fact which is pertaining to the offence or the issue before the Court and on receipt of sufficient material against any person, the Court can include such persons in the charge-sheet as an accused. Therefore, in the present case also, now it is for the complainant to adduce sufficient evidence before the Court to show that investigator has failed to book certain persons with specific evidence against such person. On receipt of such evidence, the Sessions Court can include such other person as an accused. Therefore, in the present case also, now it is for the complainant to adduce sufficient evidence before the Court to show that investigator has failed to book certain persons with specific evidence against such person. On receipt of such evidence, the Sessions Court can include such other person as an accused. It is open for the complainant to produce the witness even if he is not named as a witness in the charge-sheet by the investigating agency, but when the investigating agency, who is investigating the allegations in the FIR and relying upon the overall evidence when the investigating agency has came to particular conclusion, direction to the investigating agency to re-investigate specific issue so as to take the specific view of particular point or against unknown person, is not permissible in law. 12. In view of above facts, circumstances and discussions, at present, I do not see any reason to interfere and modify the impugned order dated 8.3.2013 passed below Exh. 2 in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2012 by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad and, therefore, the present revision application is dismissed. However, the complainant and trial Court may take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if particular evidence permits to add any other person as an additional accused.