ORDER : The proceedings on hand is initiated against the order passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara (for short 'the court below') on 31.12.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1226/2018. The said petition was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 309 Cr.P.C, seeking to stop the trial in S.C No.43/2016, originated from Crime No. 46/2016 of Mukkam Police Station. The prayer was to stop the trial of the case till a supplementary report is filed in the case within a time frame as permitted by the court in the order. The court below has allowed the application and granted the relief as follows: “In the result, the petition is allowed. Trial of this case is stopped till the filing of supplementary report. The prosecution shall make every endevour to complete further investigation as expeditiously as possible and file the report within a period of two months from today.” 2. The grievance of Sri. Ashis Korattyswaroopam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the court below is highly unjustified in passing an order of the nature. According to him, the investigation was already held by the Inspector of Police, Mukkom and on conclusion of it a final report under Sub Section (2) of Section 173 was filed before the Court. Thereafter, an application was filed as Crl.MP No.1226/2018 by the Public Prosecutor under Section 309 Cr.P.C to stop the trial, till a fresh report is filed in the case. According to him filing of a supplementary report was sought solely on the basis of the judgment reported in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [ 2018(3) KLT 852 (SC)] which laid the dictum that the detection and investigation if done by one and the same officer, the prosecution will be vitiated. According to him, the application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and a report is appended thereto as evidenced from the averments. Accordingly, trial was sought to be stopped till the filing of a report under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C at a stage when the charge framed was read over and the plea of the accused that he is not guilty of the offence was recorded. The trial was proposed to be scheduled. After three years of filing of the final report in the crime that the present application is filed. The trial was proposed to be scheduled. After three years of filing of the final report in the crime that the present application is filed. Further investigation is sought to be conducted under sub Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C but it is not stated in the application that additional evidence, either oral or documentary have been received by the investigating officer for the purpose of conduct of further investigation. On the contrary, the investigation was sought to be pursued with further for the sole reason of the finding of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal's Case (supra) that the prosecution will not sustain if the detection and investigation were conducted by one and the same officer. Therefore, on their apprehension that the trial proposed to be held against the petitioner will be vitiated and culminated in acquittal of him in view of the passing of the dictum in Mohan Lal's Case (supra), the aforesaid application was moved by the learned Public Prosecutor before the court below pursuant to which the trial scheduled was stopped and further investigation was ordered vide the order under challenge. 3. The court below in fact had received the original final report filed by the investigating officer after concluding the investigation in Crime No.46/2016, and after framing of charges on its basis and on the accused's raising a plea that he is not guilty of the accusations levelled in the charge framed, on being read over and explained to him. The court below passed the order under challenge herein in the application without applying it's mind to the averments raised by the Additional Public Prosecutor in the application. On a reading of the application, this Court is convinced that no sufficient ground is pleaded therein to invoke the power to conduct further investigation as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The sole ground raised in the application was that the investigation needs to be held again by a competent officer as directed by the Director General of Police based on the judgment in Mohan Lal's Case (supra). Raising an averment of the nature, investigation by an officer superior to the one who had already concluded the investigation and laid the final report originally under sub-section (2) of Section 173 was sought. Raising an averment of the nature, investigation by an officer superior to the one who had already concluded the investigation and laid the final report originally under sub-section (2) of Section 173 was sought. The case on hand is one involving detection and seizure of Ganja, a narcotic substance, and those were actually done by SHO of Mukkom Police Station. The very same officer had also ventured into the investigation which involve mainly questioning of witnesses of seizure and officials who marked their role in processes like detection and seizure of contraband and recording of their statements. Therefore, by filing the present application, conduct of an already concluded investigation was sought to be reopened and conducted afresh by another officer superior in rank to the one who held the same. It was not stated in the application that the investigation sought to be held was based on some new materials either oral or documentary received by the officer in charge of the police station as evidence, and a report summarizing those in the form prescribed is forwarded, to the court by him. 4. It is apposite in the context to have sub-section (8) of Section 173 extracted hereunder: 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx (8) Nothing in this section 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, whereupon 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 subsections (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). 5. It is clear from the aforequoted provision that further investigation is a prerogative of the investigating officer, who had conducted the same and filed the final report originally chargesheeting the accused under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C, and the invocation of power under sub-section (8) of Section 173 could only be sought in a context, wherein additional evidence either oral or documentary was collected and a report with reference to those was filed before the court. It has been held by the Apex court in Ranveer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2011) 14 SCC 92) that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. is only an enabling provision as it enables the police to investigate further. The Apex Court in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel and Others (2017) 4 SCC 177 ), while considering the scheme of Cr.P.C held, “though Magistrate can direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C at pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, but, if cognizance has already been taken and accused appears before court in pursuance of process issued by it or where accused is discharged, Magistrate, in the absence of any request by investigating agency, does not have any power to direct further investigation in the case either suo motu or on a prayer made for that by the complainant/informant. 6. Further investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 can be directed by Magistrate only on a request being made by an investigating agency/officer and that too, in circumstances wherein additional materials have been collected in evidence, to secure fair investigation and trial. In the case on hand, the application was filed to postpone the scheduling of the proposed trial for a considerable period for the reason that further investigation under subsection (8) of Section 173 is required to be held by a superior officer in the case, which has been taken cognizance of based on the final report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C already laid by SHO, Mukkam in the case, only to commensurate with the law settled by the dictum in Mohan Lal's case supra. Therefore, the postponement of the proceedings of the court was sought, under the impression that further investigation is required in the case. Further investigation as per sub-section (8) of Section 173, extracted supra is only possible when a report incorporating the additional evidence, oral as well as documentary received by the original investigating officer additionally was filed before the court. In the case on hand the petition is filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 309 Cr.P.C. A report from the original investigating officer narrating the additional evidence collected by him in the case is not forthcoming. In the case on hand the petition is filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 309 Cr.P.C. A report from the original investigating officer narrating the additional evidence collected by him in the case is not forthcoming. The court where the application was filed needs only to be convinced from the report that additional evidence have been collected by the investigation officer and those need to be incorporated into the final report laid by way of a supplementary report. For the court to be convinced, the report must state that the investigating officer applying for further investigation has received some materials additionally, either oral or documentary and that is relevant for the case in seizin of it. The supplementary report needs to be filed by the investigating officer and none else. In the case on hand Crl.M.P. No.1226/2018 was filed under Section 309 Cr.P.C by the Public Prosecutor seeking to postpone the trial. A report of the investigating officer describing the additional evidence collected by him is not made available to this Court. Only the application is available and it is stated therein that postponement of trial is required for filing a supplementary report under subsection (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C after holding further investigation by an officer superior in rank to the officer who has already held the investigation and laid the final report in the case under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C before the court. The investigation sought to be conducted in the application now filed by the Public prosecutor is nothing but the very same investigation concluded by SHO, Mukkom Police Station in the case on hand, which culminated in the filing of a final report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 before the Court three years back. The investigation sought to be conducted by the prosecutor in the application being one by an officer superior in rank to the one who had already held it and the application being silent about collection of any additional evidence by the investigating officer, it is nothing but a fresh investigation by a different officer on a concluded investigation only to make the prosecution case sustain in view of the legal position, settled in Mohan Lal's case (supra). Therefore, the investigation now sought is nothing but re-investigation by a different investigating officer. Therefore, the investigation now sought is nothing but re-investigation by a different investigating officer. The power to order re investigation is a power only the higher courts could exercise and that too in an application by a person raising prejudice against the investigation held against him. A re-investigation at the instance of the police or investigating agency cannot be ordered, as held by the Apex court in Amruthbhai's Case. The dictum is extracted hereunder: “60. Once a report under Section 173(2) of the Code has been filed, it can only be cancelled, proceeded further or case closed by the court of competent jurisdiction and that too in accordance with law. Neither the police or a specialised investigating agency has any right to cancel the said report.” 7. In the application on hand filed by the Public Prosecutor, further investigation is sought to be conducted by a competent officer without any report on additional evidence collected and that too in respect of an investigation concluded by an investigating officer. The supplementary report proposed to be filed could only be the very same report already taken cognizance of by the court below, in the absence of a report filed to evince collection of additional evidence. In the case on hand, a final report was laid based on the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of its investigation and the court below has already taken that on file to act upon the same. 8. What is sought to be filed in the case on hand is not a supplementary report, but, a report on the same set of evidence already collected by an officer other than the original investigating officer referred to in the application as “competent officer”. The present attempt is to make the investigation which stands illegal and vitiated for being held by the detecting officer himself, legal by causing a supplementary report laid by an officer, other than the detecting officer, which strictly is impermissible under the Code. The Final Report has already been taken cognizance of by a court of law and only by setting aside the same, a fresh final report could be received by that Court. In the above circumstances, the trial court ought not to have postponed the proceedings of the case for the purpose now sought for by the prosecution. The order under challenge is only to be set aside. In the above circumstances, the trial court ought not to have postponed the proceedings of the case for the purpose now sought for by the prosecution. The order under challenge is only to be set aside. The trial court shall proceed with the original final report already laid by the Investigating Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed on the basis of that report and it was read over and explained to the accused. On denial by him of the accusations in the charge, trial was also scheduled. In the above circumstances that trial was sought to be postponed for the reason that investigation is vitiated for not being conducted by an officer other than the detecting officer and superior in rank to him. In the absence of any materials to show that additional evidence have been collected by the Investigating Officer and a report to that effect is not forthcoming from him, the relief sought, ought to have been rejected by the trial court, being devoid of merits. The trial court ought to have applied its mind to the reality that the supplementary report sought to be filed cannot be one distinct from the final report already filed by the original Investigating Officer under Sub Section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The trial court must be vigilant to see that an officer other than the one who held the investigation cannot conduct further investigation. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. The order passed by the court below [Special Court (N.D.P.S Act cases) Vadakara] in Crl.M.P No.1226/2018 in S.C No.43/2016 is set aside. The trial shall be proceeded with by the court below on the basis of the charge already framed by it.