JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur affirmed the order dated 03.11.2022 passed in G.R. No. 1523 of 2021 arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has committed the case to the court of sessions. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code as well as 27 (2) of the Arms Act. 4. After submission of charge sheet, a letter was sent by the D.S.P., CID intimating that the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand has directed for proper investigation of the case and the case has been handed over to the D.S.P. Sri Rajkishore to reinvestigate as I.O. under Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, order sheet was drawn up by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur on 28.02.2022. Subsequently, as no communication was received, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur keeping in view that cognizance has been taken inter alia for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 (2) of Arms Act which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. After commitment, charge was framed and three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur considered that neither the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur nor any superior Court has permitted for reinvestigation and under Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure only further investigation can be done and not reinvestigation. 5. After commitment, charge was framed and three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur considered that neither the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur nor any superior Court has permitted for reinvestigation and under Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure only further investigation can be done and not reinvestigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur did not find any illegality in the order impugned before it passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur on 03.11.2022 in G.R. No. 1523 of 2021 arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 and dismissed the criminal revision. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that CID filed a petition for reinvestigation under Section 173 (8) and the same was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 being passed mechanically by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur without application of mind hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383 , paragraph no.9 of which reads as under:- “9. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.” (Emphasis supplied) submits that the law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation but reinvestigation without prior permission is forbidden. 9. It is next submitted by learned Spl. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.” (Emphasis supplied) submits that the law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation but reinvestigation without prior permission is forbidden. 9. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the only document which the petitioner could put forward regarding reinvestigation of the case having been ordered is the copy of the order dated 28.02.2022 which is passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and in which the word used is D.S.P. Shri Rajkishore appointed as I.O. to reinvestigate the case and obviously in the absence of any permission by any court of law the appointment of the I.O. to reinvestigate the case is illegal and such act on the part of any investigating agency cannot be a ground not to proceed with the logical consequence of a charge sheet having been filed in a criminal case involving the offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and cognizance of the said offences having been taken by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. It is submitted that thus, no illegality having been committed either by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in the said order dated 03.11.2022 or the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.182 of 2023; this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur did not find fault with the order impugned before it passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur on 03.11.2022 primarily because of the reason that reinvestigation of the case cannot be done without prior permission of the competent court of law and no document could be produced before it to show that any court of law has allowed reinvestigation of the case. The contention of the petitioner as made in paragraph no. The contention of the petitioner as made in paragraph no. 6 of this criminal miscellaneous petition that a petition for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. was filed is out and out false because none of the orders, the certified copy of which has been filed by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition, goes to show that any petition was filed by C.I.D. for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in either the said order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur or the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.