Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 as well as the State.

2. The question involved in the present case is whether on completion of the investigation, submission of the chargesheet and order taking cognizance, supplementary chargesheet can be submitted without their being any fresh material for submission of second chargesheet and without any investigation in relation to the fresh material. Another question which has been raised is whether the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barh, will be deemed to be a statement recorded u/s. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sufficient for submission of supplementary chargesheet.

3. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order, dated 07.04.2004, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in Barh P.S. Case No. 186 of 2001 and also for quashing the supplementary Chargesheet No. 184 of 2003, dated 23.09.2003, on the basis of which cognizance of offence under Secs. 302, 322, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act has been taken against the petitioners.

4. The first information report of Barh P.S. Case No. 186 of 2001 was instituted on 12.08.2001 on the basis of fardbeyan of Mahesh Kumar @ Lallu Kumar, who is petitioner No. 2 in this application. The prosecution story, in the first information report, is that the informant along with his servant, Chhotu @ Suraj Kumar, was going to his shop located at Barh Bazar. As soon as they reached near the house of one Navin Sao, Sanjay Kumar Sao and Vijay Kumar Sao, sons of Navin Sao, pounced Upon them and asked the informant why he has persuaded and gained over his servant. The informant replied that he has not pursuaded his servant and if Chhotu wants he is free to go and work for them. The servant, Chhotu @ Suraj Kumar, was not ready to go and work for them as he was not paid properly and also regularly beaten by them. Vijay Kumar Sao and Sanjay Kumar Sao caught hold of informant and his servant and started assaulting and abusing. This was protested by the informant, One Ram Sevak Sao came to intervene, on this Vijay Kumar Sao took out pistol and fired upon the informant, but it hit at the stomach of Ram Sevak Sao. He sustained injury, fell down and started bleeding profusely. On the sound of firing several people gathered and accused persons fled away. The injured was taken to Barh Hospital from where he was recommended for his treatment to Patna Medical College Hospital where he died in course of his treatment. Initially the case was registered u/s. 307/34 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as 27 of the Arms Act. After the death of the injured, Ram Sevak Sao, sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the case.

5. The case was investigated, statement of several witnesses, including the wife and son of the deceased, were also recorded. They supported the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, Navin Sao, father of the accused. Vijay Kumar Sao and Sanjay Kumar Sao, filed Complaint Case No. 300(C) of 2001 naming petitioner No. 2 and other petitioners as accused. Navin Sao also influenced the. son and wife of the deceased promising them substantial money and they also filed Complaint Case. No. 335(C) of 2001 as the petitioners refused to pay them money demanded by them.

6. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer closed investigation, ;js mentioned in paragraphs 130 and 131 of the case diary and submitted Chargesheet No. 44 of 2002 on 27.03.2003 against Vijay Kumar Sao and Sanjay Kumar Sao, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions vide Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2003.

7. After the submission of the chargesheet, the father of the accused influenced the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barh. On 31.05,2002, the Deputy Superintendent of Police without their being any direction of the superior authority or without taking any permission of the Court, subm