Judgment :- A. Selvam, J. 1. A trite question which has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions, raised in the following Reference. 2. The factual situation of the present proceeding is that one Mohana Das, Village Administrative Officer, N.Mettupatti Village, Additional in-charge of Pappakudi, as a complainant has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi police station, wherein it is stated that a dead body is found in the place of occurrence. The complaint given by him has been registered in Crime No.188 of 2007 as suspicious death. On 31.01.2010, the Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station has filed a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Sattur, wherein it is stated that the crime mentioned in the complaint has not been detected. On the basis of the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi police station, the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Sattur has recorded the same as 'undetected'. The Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi police station has submitted a requisition on 30.03.2012 to the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Sattur, wherein it is prayed to permit him to conduct reinvestigation and the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur has given permission accordingly. On the basis of permission granted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, investigation has been done and subsequently filed a final report under Sections 120(b), 176, 201, 217, 218, 302 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code and the same has been taken on file in PRC No.26 of 2013. In order to quash PRC No.26 of 2013, Crl O.P(MD)No.18476 of 2013 has been filed on the file of this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the matter before a Larger Bench by way of raising the following question: “Whether the judicial act of acceptance of a referred charge sheet (negative final report) by a Magistrate would have to be challenged and set aside before resort is had to further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 4. The then Hon'ble Administrative Judge has directed the Registry to place the matter before the Criminal Division Bench at Madurai. Under the said circumstances, Reference has been placed before this Bench. 5. 4. The then Hon'ble Administrative Judge has directed the Registry to place the matter before the Criminal Division Bench at Madurai. Under the said circumstances, Reference has been placed before this Bench. 5. It is an admitted fact that the Village Administrative Officer, N.Mettupatti Village holding additional charge of Pappakudi Village has lodged a complaint in Irukankudi police station, wherein it has been simply stated that a dead body is found with injuries in the place of occurrence and the same has been registered in Crime No.188 of 2007 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequently the Inspector of Police, Irukankudi police station has conducted investigation and filed a final report stating 'undetected' and the same has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur and after some time, the Inspector of Police, Irukankudi Police Station has given a requisition dated 30.03.2012 to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, wherein permission has been sought for to conduct reinvestigation and accordingly permission has been granted. 6. On the basis of Reference, the only point that has to be decided is as to whether the concerned Magistrate is having power to give necessary permission for conducting reinvestigation or de novo investigation after receipt of final report as 'undetected' and also recorded the same. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has befittingly contended that in the instant case already a referred Charge sheet has been filed to the effect that the case has been 'undetected' and the same has also been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. Under the said circumstances, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur has no jurisdiction nor power to permit the Investigating Agency to conduct reinvestigation. But the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur has erroneously given such kind of permission on the basis of requisition dated 30.03.2012 and if at all reinvestigation has to be done, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Sattur on the basis of referred Charge sheet has to be set aside by superior forum and in the instant case, the same has not been done and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of permission granted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur are totally erroneous and also unknown to law. Under the said circumstances, Crl O.P(MD)No.18476 of 2013 has been filed and the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to a Larger Bench by way of raising a question as to “whether the judicial act of acceptance of a referred charge sheet (negative final report) by a Magistrate would have to be challenged and set aside before resort is has to further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?” and the question raised by the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct. 8. In order to rebut the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent has made an abortive attempt by way of relying upon a sentence found in the referred charge sheet, wherein it is stated that the Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi has undertaken to conduct investigation if sufficient materials are available in future. 9. At this juncture, it would be condign to look into the prayer made in the requisition dated 30.03.2012 submitted by the Inspector of Police, Irukankudi police station, wherein it has been clinchingly prayed to give necessary permission to conduct reinvestigation and the same has been permitted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. Therefore, it is pellucid that on the basis of requisition submitted by the Inspector of Police, Irukankudi Police Station on 30.03.2012, permission has been granted to conduct reinvestigation. Under the said circumstances, the Court has to further analyse as to whether the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur is having power to grant necessary permission for conducting reinvestigation or de novo investigation. 10. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (a) In (1980) 2 SCC 91 [Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal], the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with similar questions and observed as follows: “Sections 169 and 170 do not talk of the submission of any report by the police to the Magistrate, although they do state what the police has to do short of such submission when it finds at the conclusion of the investigation (1) that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate (Section 169) or (2) that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid (Section 170). In either case the final report of the police is to be submitted to the Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 173. Sub-section (3) of that section further provides that in the case of a report by the police that the accused has been released on his bond (which is the situation envisaged by Section 169), the Magistrate shall make “such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit”. Now what are the courses open to the Magistrate in such a situation? He may, as held by this Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra: (1) agree with the report of the police and file the proceedings; or (2) not agree with the police report and (a) order further investigation, or (b) hold that the evidence is sufficient to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate and take cognizance of the offence complained of. Further it is observed that “the appropriate course has to be decided upon after a consideration of the report and the application of the mind of the Magistrate to the contents thereof. But then the problem to be solved is whether the order passed by the Magistrate pertains to his executive or judicial capacity. In my opinion, the only order which can be regarded as having been passed by the Magistrate in his capacity as the supervisory authority in relation to the investigation carried out by the police is the one covered by the course 2(a). The order passed by the Magistrate in each of the other two courses, that is, (1) and (2)(b), follows a conclusion of the investigation and is a judicial order determining the rights of the parties (the State on the one hand and the accused on the other) after the application of his mind. And if that be so, the order passed by the Magistrate in the proceeding before us must be characterised as a judicial act and therefore as one performed in his capacity as a Court.” 11. From a cursory look of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is easily discernible that if a Magistrate accepts report of the Police, act of Magistrate must be construed as a judicial act. From a cursory look of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is easily discernible that if a Magistrate accepts report of the Police, act of Magistrate must be construed as a judicial act. If it is judicial act, the concerned Magistrate, who passes judicial order, cannot revoke the same in suo motu and the order of the Magistrate has to be challenged before superior forum. 12. In (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, “Further investigation” is where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the executive. It is the continuation of previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as “further investigation”. The scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the court even if they are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as “supplementary report”. “Supplementary report” would be the correct expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” investigation.” 13. Even from a mere reading of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is made clear that “further investigation” means discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. To put it in short, it is subsequent stage to primary investigation. The report filed on the basis of further investigation is nothing but supplementary report. Further investigation has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” investigation. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that “Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or “fresh” investigation (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of police report. Further investigation has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” investigation. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that “Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or “fresh” investigation (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of police report. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further investigation” after filing a police report in terms of section 173(8) of the Code.” 15. From the conjoint reading of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is easily discernible that the concerned Magistrate is having power to permit further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But he has no power to give necessary permission to conduct “reinvestigation” or “fresh” investigation (de novo). 16. In (2013) 6 SCC 384 [Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “More so, in the backdrop of settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, reinvestigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code.” 17. In (2011) 9 SCC 182 (State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “Sub-section (8) of Section 173 states that nothing in the section shall be deemed to preclude any further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Thus, even where charge-sheet or challan has been filed by the police under sub-section (2) of Section 173, the police can undertake further investigation but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation in respect of an offence under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.PC.” 18. In (2008) 5 SCC 413 [Ramachandran Vs. R.Udhayakumar and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “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 reinvestigation.” 19. 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 reinvestigation.” 19. In the instant case, as narrated earlier, the Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station has submitted a final report stating 'undetected' and the same has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. After a lapse of two years, the Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi has submitted a requisition on 30.03.2012, whereby permission sought for to conduct reinvestigation. 20. As per the dictums given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has already been pointed out that Magistrate has no power to give necessary permission for conducting “reinvestigation” “fresh or de novo” investigation. Further it is found earlier that the order passed by the concerned Magistrate on the basis of police report is nothing but judicial order and the same cannot be recalled nor revoked by the concerned Magistrate himself. Therefore, it is quite clear that permission to conduct reinvestigation on the basis of requisition dated 30.03.2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur is ab initio void since the same has been passed without jurisdiction. 21. The Reference made by the learned Single Judge is as to “whether the judicial act of acceptance of a referred charge sheet (negative final report) by a Magistrate would have to be challenged and set aside before resort is had to further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?” 22. It has already been pointed out that an order passed by a Magistrate on the basis of referred charge sheet (negative final report) is nothing but a judicial order and the same has to be challenged before superior forum and further, further investigation cannot be sought for under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case of referred charge sheet and at the most, permission to conduct “reinvestigation” or “de novo” investigation can be sought for before appropriate forum and not before Magistrate, since Magistrate has no power to give necessary permission for conducting “reinvestigation” or “de novo” investigation. 23. In the light of the discussion made earlier, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is having acceptable force, whereas, the contention put forth on the side of the respondent is sans merit. 23. In the light of the discussion made earlier, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is having acceptable force, whereas, the contention put forth on the side of the respondent is sans merit. 24. In fine, it is held that acceptance of a referred charge sheet (negative final report) by a Magistrate has to be challenged before appropriate forum for setting aside the same. Further it is held that Magistrate has no power to give necessary permission for conducting “reinvestigation” “fresh or de novo” investigation and accordingly the Reference is answered. The Registry is directed to post Crl O.P(MD)No.18476 of 2013 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions before the concerned Court.”