JUDGMENT : Several cases arises out of Vigilance Police Case of the year 1995 for which separate vigilance cases were lodged for mass scale irregularities committed in purchase/supply of insecticides in different divisions of Forest Department causing loss to the State Government. 2. The prosecution story in aforementioned cases are common. As per F.I.R., member of Zila Parishad, Panchaiti Raj Samiti of Bihar Vidhan Sabha during an enquiry held that between the period 1988-89 to the year 1990-91 on the basis of non-existing company as well as on the basis of forged documents and bills submitted showing supply of Alderin dust 5% and Aldrex-30EC to the Department of Forest. The case was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Department of Vigilance. The committee of Bihar Vidhan Sabha found that non-existing firm being M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar had supplied Alderin dust 5% and Aldrex-30EC insecticides during the relevant year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 to the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar in 11 Divisions to the tune of Rs.22,48,093.14 Paise (Rupees Twenty two lacs forty eight thousand ninety three and paise fourteen). The committee could not find proprietor of these fake firms who had received payments, so recommended for lodging of case to the State Government for taking action. In this context, Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar by annexing the said report of Bihar Vidhan Sabha Samiti requested the Vigilance Investigation Bureau for lodging case. Accordingly, several Vigilance P.S. Cases were lodged including Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 1995 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After lodgment of the case, preliminary enquiry was made by the Vigilance Bureau in different division and it came to their knowledge that these scam were not only going on in those 11 Divisions rather it was being committed in other Forest Division also. After lodgment of the case, preliminary enquiry was made by the Vigilance Bureau in different division and it came to their knowledge that these scam were not only going on in those 11 Divisions rather it was being committed in other Forest Division also. The facts appeared during the investigation by Vigilance Bureau that so called suppliers in conspiracy with the officials of Forest and Environment Department, who were posted in different Forest Division by conspiring and misusing official position, caused misappropriation of several crores of rupees by showing fake purchases and supplies of insecticides by the proprietors of these fake firms causing loss to the Department of Forest, Government of Bihar. (i) Mohan Lal Murarka and his son Arun Kumar Murarka, resident of A.P. Colony, Gaya, were proprietor of so called firm “Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya, Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa and Allied Chemical Industries, Barmasia, Deoghar. (ii) M/s Vijay Kumar Agarwal,, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Nawal Kishore Agarwal, all sons of Daulat Ram Agarwal, resident of Sheoganj, Harmu Road were proprietors of Bhumi Viksh Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi. (iii) Madho Lal Agarwal and his son Manoj Kumar Agarwal and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal resident of Arya Samaj Road, Daltonganj, were said to be proprietor of M/s Vasundhara, Katchari Road, Daltonganj, Ranchi. M/s Chittal Enterprises, Arya Samaj Road, Daltonganj, Garhwa and M/s Kheti-Bari, Indira Gandhi Road, Garhwa. (iv) Ashok Kumar Gadodia, Vishwanath Kumar Gadodia, Vijay Kumar Gadodia, Vimal Kumar Gadodia, and Om Prakash Gadodia, all sons of Hulal Chandra Gadodia resident of Mohalla Bakri Bazar, Gari Khana Road, Ranchi were running firm as Neo Plastic and Chemical Agency, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. These fake firms were being utilized by their owners for submission of bidding and were showing supply of insecticides worth crores of rupees to the different Forest Divisions for which separate vigilance cases were being lodged. 3. The further case is that when the Government decided in the year 1991 that the purchases of insecticides will not be from the local firms then aforesaid fake companies/suppliers closed their firms as well as closed their bank accounts, therefore, it is apparent that all these firms were fake firms without any existence and were mainly dependent on the fake supply of insecticides to the Department of Forest. 4. 4. It was found during enquiry by the Vigilance Bureau that Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was neither registered in the Commercial Tax Department or Industries Department nor its physical existence were found in Ratu Road, Ranchi. Actually, it was fake firms run by the sons of M/s Daulat Ram Agarwal, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi. The proprietors of this fake firm by conspiring with Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Bihar, Patna got supply order in which the proprietor of this fake firm was shown as Vikash Kumar as proprietor but its parentage or address was not mentioned with a view that no steps could be taken against this fake firm nor any information with regard to the proprietor Vikash Kumar could be obtained. The license of this fake firm namely Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was not renewed after 23.11.1988. Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Ranchi has informed to the Vigilance Bureau that license of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road was never renewed or any new license was issued to the firm. Vijay Kumar Agarwal as proprietor of fake firm M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi had opened account in Vijaya Bank, Ranchi and in the account opening form Vijay Kumar Agarwal mentioned name of his father as Daulat Ram Agarwal and address as Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi. Through this firm Vijay Kumar Agarwal had shown fake supply of insecticides to Social Forestry Division, Hazaribag and other divisions and had also received several lacs of rupees as illegal payment. Vijay Kumar Agarwal in conspiracy with his two brothers had also opened account in Bank of India, Ranchi Branch as fake proprietor in the fake name as Vikash Kumar Agarwal. Through this account also Vijay Kumar Agarwal and his brothers by making conspiracy and forgery, received illegal payment by showing supply of insecticides through this paper firm to Social Forestry Division, Hazaribag and other divisions. Several papers showing false/fake supply of insecticides were being prepared at Ratu Road, Ranchi by Vijay Kumar Agarwal in connivance with his brothers Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Nawal Kishore Agarwal and they were also involved in preparation of fake papers in the name of this fake firm showing proprietor as Vikash Kumar Agarwal. Although this fake firm was being run by Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ratu Road, Ranchi, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, and Nawal Kishore Agarwal. Although this fake firm was being run by Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ratu Road, Ranchi, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, and Nawal Kishore Agarwal. They were also using some fake firms which existed only on papers and were also used for submission of bidding as well as for preparing comparative rate chart in the tender. Name of this fake firms were M/s Krishi Dhan, Main Road, Lohardaga, M/s Evergreen Centre, Court Compound, Ranchi, M/s Dharti Vikash, Ratu Road, Ranchi, M/s Bhumi Ratna, Circular Road, Ranchi. These firms were neither registered in the Commercial Tax or Industries Department and they did not obtain any license in sale/purchase of insecticides. These firms were not having any physical existence rather these firms were Pocket Firm of these three brothers. 5. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, son of Daulat Ram Agarwal had also opened Kamal Industries, Sheoganj, Harmu Road Ranchi in the year 1987 which was registered from District Industries Centre, Ranchi by registration dated 12.10.1985. From this firm, Vijay Kumar Agarwal with other two brothers managed to show fake supply of polythene tube. Another proprietorship firm M/s Balaji Chemicals, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi was opened by Vijay Kumar Agarwal with his brother Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and through this firm on several occasion different articles were shown to have been supplied to the Department of Forest and Environment. Another firm M/s Balaji Hardware Store, Sheoganj, Harmu Road, Ranchi was also opened by this family through Rajendra Prasad Agarwal as proprietor and this firm on different occasion had supplied various hardware items on different occasion to the Department of Forest. 6. During the year between 1980-81 to 1990-91, the fake supply of insecticides were shown to have been supplied through these fake firms which were running only on paper and the proprietors of these firms managed to receive illegal payment in which amount of Sales Tax were also included but these firms neither in Ranchi nor in other places deposited the amount of Commercial Tax or any Income Tax arising out from these payments. Vigilance Bureau also found that the fake firm Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi during the year 1980-81 to the year 1991-92 no purchase of even single gram of Alderin 5% dust were made from any manufacturing company but shown to have supplied huge quantity of insecticides to the Department of Forest and Environment. Vigilance Bureau also found that the fake firm Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi during the year 1980-81 to the year 1991-92 no purchase of even single gram of Alderin 5% dust were made from any manufacturing company but shown to have supplied huge quantity of insecticides to the Department of Forest and Environment. It was claimed by this fake supplier that the 5% Alderin dust was purchased from renowned manufacturing company namely, Northern Mineral Limited, New Delhi but during enquiry Vigilance Bureau was informed by Northern Mineral Limited, New Delhi through his letter dated 5th February, 1994 that the company had never supplied insecticides to M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi or any other fake firm like Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa, M/s Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar, Neo Plastic and Chemical Industries, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, Kishan Ghar, Main Road, Garhwa. The purchase of 5% Alderin dust by the Forest department were made without inviting any tender or by advertising in the newspaper, nor any quotation was invited from the renowned manufacturing firms or from authorized sales stockiest. As per Government direction/circular, conditions of purchase applicable in the year 1984 was bypassed and knowingly the purchases were made through fake and non-existing firms by the officials of department. By making conspiracy, illegal payments were paid/received and it was encashed through those fake bank accounts. 7. On the basis of above facts, Vigilance Thana lodged the case and conducted investigation in the matter. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted in several cases in which involvement of these accused persons transpired. The officials of Department of Forest and Environment as well as suppliers who were accused in different Vigilance P.S. Case have filed application for quashing of F.I.R., order taking cognizance as well as against the dismissal of discharge application by the court below. Aggrieved against such orders, these accused petitioners have approached this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further investigation could be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the existence of Bhumi Vikash Kendra was found in one of the Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 1995 and no charge sheet was submitted against proprietor of the said firm. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further investigation could be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the existence of Bhumi Vikash Kendra was found in one of the Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 1995 and no charge sheet was submitted against proprietor of the said firm. This fact was disclosed by the prosecution by filing response in discharge application filed by this petitioner annexing copy of internal communication between the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi with Additional Public Prosecutor that since the existence of M/s Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi was found and due to this reason no charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner in Vigilance Case No.52 of 1995. Since investigation in relation to other cases had already been completed and charge sheet/final form had been submitted, no further action could be initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the firm Bhumi Vikash Kendra, Ratu Road, Ranchi has supplied insecticides to several other divisions and in those cases on the premise that the physical existence of this firm was not found, the prosecution presumed that the supplies were shown to have been made through a fake firm, therefore, investigation in this regard is very much needed. He relied on a decision of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Sheetla Sahai & Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617 and submitted that accused has right for fair investigation and fair trial and he cannot be deprived merely the prosecution is relying certain materials and if the two views are possible then the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face the trial. He further submitted that re-investigation could be ordered even if the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. He further relied on a decision of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Versus State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) SCC 441 and submitted that the court has supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation and Investigating Officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate. He also relied on a decision of Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Principal Secretary & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 . In this situation, this Court may order for re-investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even at the time of discharge further investigation could be ordered. He also relied on a decision of Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Principal Secretary & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 . In this situation, this Court may order for re-investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even at the time of discharge further investigation could be ordered. Delay of trial is not a relevant consideration and Police can conduct further investigation and should inform the court and seek permission to make further investigation as per the decision of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Versus State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure have a corrective mechanism at different stage viz. (i) Investigation (ii) Trial (iii) Appeal (iv) Revision. Thus, the revisional court during the pendency of the trial may exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 in which case, it may direct further enquiry in terms of Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This proposition was held in the case of Popular Muthiah Versus State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296 . Therefore, this Court may exercise its revisional power as well as its inherent power to order further investigation even at this stage. Even exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure just and fair investigation. 9. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that there are several fake firms that were utilized for showing supply of insecticides to different forest divisions and huge amount of loss was caused to the State. Charge sheet has already been submitted in these cases and investigation at this stage is neither practicable nor suitable in these cases. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, the court below relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Rao Versus State of Karnataka & Another reported in 2017(8) Supreme Today 579 wherein it has been held that a Magistrate cannot suo moto or on an application filed by the complainant/informant direct the further investigation after cognizance has been taken on the basis of earlier report and process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. The court below further find that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons and cognizance has already been taken and in this situation rejected the petition filed by accused persons under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. It further appears that the petitioner is depending upon an internal communication between the Superintendent of Police and Additional Public Prosecutor and none other document have been brought on record. In this case, as per allegation the license to deal with trade of insecticides was not renewed as well as the banking transaction and bank operation were all on paper managed by the supplier of the firm only to realize and encash cheque and bank drafts. These bank accounts were closed immediately after the scam was detected. In the decision of Popular Muthiah (supra), it was held that High Court can direct further investigation against persons who were not charge sheeted and were not accused at the stage of trial. This proposition is not applicable here as in the instant case charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken. In this situation, there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned order. Proprietors of these firms managed to receive illegal payment in which amount of Sales Tax were also included but these firms neither in Ranchi nor in other places deposited the amount of Commercial Tax or any Income Tax arising out from these payments. 11. In the result, instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned. Petition dismissed.