JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Cr.R.P. No.58/2013 and consequently to set aside the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavakalyan, in C.C. No.99/2007, whereunder the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, a private complaint was filed alleging that on 05.01.2005 at about 9.00 a.m., the complainant was in the land bearing Sy. No.132/A and in the said land one Samadani, who had taken the hand loan from the complainant had grown Toor crop and he has cut the crop and kept it in the heap of crop in the land for harvesting. At that time, the accused persons came to the said land in a lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-38/957 and abused the labourers of the complainant in filthy language. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant and CWs.2 and 3 went to the spot and the accused persons abused the complainant and his men and threatened them with dire consequences and thereafter by loading the said Toor crop in the said lorry have looted the property and went away from the place. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. When the case was pending, the complainant has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the further investigation of the offence, as the Investigating Officer has not seized the stolen Toor crop as well as the lorry which has been involved in the alleged offence. The said application was contested by the accused and after hearing the parties to the lis, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class passed the order dated 14.08.2013 rejecting the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.58/2013. The same was came to be dismissed by order dated 09.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4. The same was came to be dismissed by order dated 09.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the trial Court has not considered the facts and law on the point and erroneously dismissed the application and the same was confirmed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in the revision petition. Thereby, a serious error has been caused in order to meet the ends of justice. It is also contended that the Revisional Court without considering the material evidence on record summarily dismissed the revision without assigning any reasons, as such the order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., at any time, if the further investigation is required, the Court can pass an appropriate order and in order to meet the ends of justice, the further investigation can also be made. It is the discretionary power of the Judicial Magistrate to issue the further investigation and as such the said power has not been properly exercised by the trial Court and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition by setting aside both the impugned orders. 5. Per contra, by justifying the order of the trial Court, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has not made out any good ground so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the order of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also vehemently argued and contended that as per the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., if already the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, under such circumstances, the Court has no jurisdiction and it cannot order for the further investigation of the case. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also vehemently argued and contended that as per the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., if already the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, under such circumstances, the Court has no jurisdiction and it cannot order for the further investigation of the case. He would also contend that the Court below has to evaluate the material which has been made available before the Court and there is no question of further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have gone through the averments of the petition and the grounds urged by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 8. The only point which arises for my consideration is that whether further investigation/ fresh investigation/reinvestigation can be made by virtue of the power as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Manvendra Reddy has vehemently contended that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has neither seized the toor crop nor the lorry in which the said toor crop has been looted by the accused. He would further contend that the investigating agency has not properly investigated the case and if the same is proceeded as it is, then under such circumstances it is going to cause prejudice to the complainant. He would further contend that the Court below has not considered this aspect while considering the application filed by the petitioner. It is well- established principles of law that, justice not only has to be done but also must appears to have been done by the Court. It is also the well-established principles of law that due administration of Justice is always viewed as a continuous process, not confined to the determination of a particular case so much so that a Court must cease to be a mute spectator and a mere recording machine but become a participate in the trial evincing intelligence and active interest and elicit all relevant material necessary for recording the correct conclusion and find out the truth and administer justice with fairness impartially both to the parties to do the community. It is further observed that investigation agency appears to be ineffective, not able to discharge its function fairly, meaningfully and fructuously, on the face if faulty investigation is found, then re-investigation can be directed. This proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 . 9. By keeping in view the above observation and circumstances of the case, if the facts are perused it indicates that even though on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant the investigating agency has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against accused persons. But the criminal papers does not disclose what happened to the crop which has been looted from the said place and what happened to the vehicle, in which the said crop has been seized. The said articles are considered to be material objects/articles for the purpose of proving of the case. In the absence of the said material the case cannot be proved. 10. By going through the case papers the investigation which has been said to have been done appears to be not fair, impartial and effective investigation. When the Court specifies that there is no proper, fair, impartial and defective investigation and not reliable then it is the pre-condition for direction for further investigation or re-investigation, then under such circumstances the further investigation can be ordered in the said case. The contractual facts as narrated above indicates that the further investigation or re-investigation would reveal the truth and meet out ends of justice to the parties requires in that behalf. I want to relay on a decision reported in the case of Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 135. “Criminal Trial-Investigation-Fresh investigation/Reinvestigation or further investigation-By the same or different agency-When permissible-Proactive role of Court in (constitutional courts alone empowered to direct fresh investigation/reinvestigation and further investigation, while regular Court empowered only to direct further investigation)-Need for-Fact that charge sheet has already been filed or that trial is pending-Relevance to whether fresh investigation/reinvestigation or further investigation can be ordered-Law summarised. 11. By going through the records it indicates that investigation officer not even bothered to search and seize the incriminating materials of the crime, the main purpose of investigation is to discover truth. 11. By going through the records it indicates that investigation officer not even bothered to search and seize the incriminating materials of the crime, the main purpose of investigation is to discover truth. This proposition of law has been held in the case of Smt. Mariam Fasihuddin Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2016 (3) AKR 413. 12. By going through the proposition of law laid down in catena of cases of Hon’ble Apex Court and in the above said decisions and under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that in order to have a fair, impartial and effective investigation for ascertaining the truth and in order to meet the ends of justice, further investigation in this case is required as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. This aspect has not been considered and appreciated by both the courts below. In that light, it requires interference at the hands of this Court. 13. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, impugned order requires to be set aside and the petition is requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby allowed. 14. The impugned order dated 14.8.2013 and 9.9.2015 passed by JMFC, Basavakalyan and II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar respectively are hereby set asided and the trial Court is directed to proceed as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.