JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over. 3. In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter is ignored for the present. 4. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 09.01.2020, passed by the learned Spl. Judge C.B.I. Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 01 (S) of 2010-AHD-R whereby and where under the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner who is an accused for a fresh investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was working as a Manager (Advance) in Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Hazaribagh and it is alleged that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with borrowers of a loan account and others on the basis of forged and fabricated collateral security documents and also forging the signature and left thumb impression of some of the guarantors of the loan account was instrumental in sanction of the loan of Rs. 2,65,65,000/-. The said loan with interest outstanding amounted to Rs. 3,37,21,452/- against the borrowers and same has become non-performing asset. After investigation, in this case C.B.I. submitted charge sheet. Cognizance was taken vide order dated 06.07.2011, charge was framed against the petitioner on 01.03.2016, prosecution evidence was closed on 06.09.2019. The statement of the accused was recorded on 17.09.2019. The defence evidence was closed on 03.12.2019 and the case was fixed for argument. It was contended by the petitioner before the learned court below that the investigating officer did not investigate the case in proper manner and without proper investigation of the case; charge sheet has been submitted in a hurry against some of the innocent persons including the petitioner. It was also contended by the petitioner that I.O. has also committed gross negligence during course of investigation. It was also contended by the petitioner that I.O. has also committed gross negligence during course of investigation. It was further contended by the petitioner before the learned court below that the I.O. has failed to properly investigate on the point of non-encumbrance certificate and the deed of sale in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh and though it is alleged that wrong non-encumbrance certificate has been issued but none of the employees including District Sub-Registrar has been made accused in this case. Hence, it was submitted that fresh investigation in this case is required under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2019 SCC Online SC 1346. The prayer of further investigation was objected to by C.B.I. and it was contended by C.B.I. before the trial court that the petition has been filed only with the intention of delaying the disposal of the case which is at the stage of argument. The learned trial court observed that provision of section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. can be pressed into service only at the instance of the Investigating Agency but not at the option of the complainant or the accused. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 129 , paragraph 25 to 27 of which reads as under:- “25. What emerges from the abovementioned decisions of this Court is that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code. 26. 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 reinvestigate the matter. 26. 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 reinvestigate 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 reinvestigation 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. 27. Since no application had been made by the investigating authorities for conducting further investigation as permitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 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. 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) The learned court below observed that as in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the Magistrate cannot suo moto direct a further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. after the charge is framed. Learned trial court also considered that grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. regarding the involvement of other culprits which was considered in a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. made with the prayer to arraign such persons as accused which has been rejected by the trial court hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court rejected the petition under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 6. It is submitted by Mr. It is submitted by Mr. Rahul Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below has erroneously observed in the impugned order that the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked at the instance of an accused, as the judgment in the case of Reeta Nag (supra) upon which the learned court below relied upon has been overruled by the judgment dated 16th October, 2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC Online SC 1346 (supra), paragraph 49 of which reads as under:- “49. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra), Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal, (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.” (Emphasis Supplied) Submits that it is a fit case where fresh investigation ought to have been ordered. Hence, the impugned order be set aside and the prayer for fresh investigation made by the petitioner be allowed. 7. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that there is no dispute that after Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. The State of Gujarat (supra) the law is that the trial court has the discretion that if justifiable it may order for fresh investigation in exercise of its suo moto power but the question is under what circumstances such power can be exercised. In this case, not only charge but undisputedly evidence of both the prosecution and defence has already been adduced and closed and the case is fixed for hearing of final arguments. In this case, not only charge but undisputedly evidence of both the prosecution and defence has already been adduced and closed and the case is fixed for hearing of final arguments. Though on the same grounds as has been mentioned in the petition, the petitioner tried to arraign some persons who has not been cited as accused in this case but the said prayer of the petitioner has already been rejected by the trial court by reasoned order and the revision preferred against the said order has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that at this belated stage, there is no justifiable reason for passing of order of fresh investigation and this is an effort made by the petitioner after a decade of the institution of the case at the fag end of the trial, only to delay the disposal of the case. Hence, Mr. Sinha submits that keeping in view that this case is about ten years old, hence, the trial court be directed to deliver the judgment within a period of reasonable time. 8. It is a settled principle of law that the power of further investigation should be used very sparingly and with great circumspection. After carefully going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that the contention of the petitioner regarding investigation being improper or for that matter some culprits has not been cited as accused persons is omnibus in nature and it lacks specific and detailed averments in this respect. After carefully going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that the contention of the petitioner regarding investigation being improper or for that matter some culprits has not been cited as accused persons is omnibus in nature and it lacks specific and detailed averments in this respect. Further keeping in view the inexplicable reason as to what made the petitioner not approach the Court for reinvestigation at the initial stage prior to framing of charge as the grounds for the prayer for reinvestigation were existing at that stage also and considering the fact that the evidence of both the prosecution and defence has already been closed and the case is fixed for hearing of the final arguments of the case and in absence of any cogent materials in the record for the reinvestigation as also the fact that on the similar grounds a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has already been rejected by the trial court and the revision against the said order has been dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. so far as not allowing the trial for reinvestigation of the case. Accordingly, this revision petition being without any merit is dismissed.